update_pantheon

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. It does not say whether updates are partial (name or description independently), what happens with an invalid or nonexistent id, whether the change is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource and affected fields front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently written, though nearly too terse for the amount of undisclosed behavior around a mutation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (three parameters, one required, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description plus a fully documented schema covers the mechanics adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about partial-update semantics and error behavior for a write operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (id, name, description) is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it. The phrase 'name or description' weakly signals optionality, but the schema's required list already establishes that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb (update) with a specific resource (pantheon) and names the two mutable fields, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from update_god, update_myth, and update_context_window. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the resource noun alone does the disambiguation work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'existing' and the required id parameter imply the tool targets a pantheon that already exists, which is useful context for when to use it. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_pantheon or delete_pantheon, and no statement of prerequisites or failure conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.