yougile_update_string_sticker

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

The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that the update can be a soft-delete (a specific type of destructive operation) and warns about using the correct field name. This goes beyond the annotations' generic destructiveHint.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The additional note is brief and directly useful.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with annotations and full schema descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs state updates, but covers the essential purpose and a key usage detail.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description's note about using 'name' rather than 'title' provides extra semantic guidance for the name parameter, and clarifies the 'deleted' parameter's purpose.

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 'Update a string sticker' and specifies the two update actions (name or soft-delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_string_sticker_state. The verb and resource are explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_string_sticker_state or when to use create instead of update. The note about 'name' vs 'title' is a parameter hint, not usage context.

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