spore_update

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior and clearing via empty strings, but lacks details on permissions, error cases, return values, or what happens if the spore is not open. The absence of output schema compounds this 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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second clarifies clearing semantics, third explains what is not done and alternative. No fluff.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core logic but omits return format, error handling, and prerequisites for non-open spores. Sufficient for basic usage but not fully comprehensive.

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 50% (4 of 8 params described). The description adds meaning by explaining that empty strings clear next/pointer/domain and that add_note appends a dated note. However, it does not explain spore_id, tier, text, or salience beyond their schema type/enum.

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 'Metadata surgery on an OPEN spore' with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('spore'), and distinguishes from siblings like spore_touch (for bumping seen) and add_note (for notes). It also clarifies that empty strings clear fields.

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 specifies to use this tool only on OPEN spores and directs to spore_touch for engagement signals. It also explains the add_note parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for non-open spores).

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