update_place

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the API-token requirement; it never states whether the update is partial (unchanged fields preserved) or full replacement, what happens when the id does not exist or a status transition is invalid, or whether changes are reversible. The mutation fact is already evident from the tool name, leaving the description with little added behavioral value.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the token-requirement note is useful and earns its place. However, for a 15-parameter mutation tool this is under-specification rather than appropriately concise — a clarifying sentence about partial-update semantics or required permissions would materially improve it without bloating it.

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?

Complexity is high: 15 parameters, a mutation operation, no annotations, and no output schema. The description omits update semantics, expected return value, error behavior, and any differentiation from bulk_update_status. An agent could invoke the tool with valid parameters but would not know what side effects to expect or how to interpret the result.

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 all 15 parameters are already documented in the input schema with types, enums, and Japanese descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource pair: '既存の会場情報を更新します' (updates existing place info). The qualifier '既存の' (existing) implicitly distinguishes it from create_place, and the update verb separates it from delete_place. However, it does not address the sibling bulk_update_status, which also mutates place data, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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 only guidance is 'APIトークンが必要です' (API token required), which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over create_place, delete_place, bulk_update_status, or search_places, and no exclusionary conditions or workflow hints are provided.

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