update_common_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that updates propagate to templates and messages using the shortcode, and that create/delete are unavailable. This provides good transparency for a mutation tool, though it could mention any reversal constraints.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and adds necessary details about side effects and limitations without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, impact (value reflects in templates/messages), and constraints (no create/delete). With 2 parameters and complete schema coverage, this is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('共通情報ID' and '新しい値'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb '更新する' (update) and the resource '共通情報' (common info), distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_common_infos' by referencing it for viewing. It specifies that it updates one item's value, providing a clear and unique purpose.

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 description explains when to use this tool (for updating a common info) and explicitly states that creation and deletion APIs are not provided, guiding against misuse. It also describes the effect on templates and messages, giving context for impact, though it does not directly compare with other tools like 'add_tag_to_friend'.

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