update_world

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: replacement for scalars/lists, key-wise merge for flags, invariant validation, state unchanged on error, and the exclusive capability to set the victory flag and advance turn. This is comprehensive.

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 three focused sentences, each adding essential information: what the tool does, how fields are handled, and its unique role. No wasted words.

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 description covers the key aspects for a patching tool with one parameter and an output schema. It explains merge behavior and error handling. However, it does not explicitly state what the function returns on success, though the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The sole parameter 'changes' is an object with no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining how specific fields (current_location, flags, etc.) are handled, but does not enumerate all possible keys, leaving some reliance on agent inference.

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 it patches the world, specifies which fields are replaced vs merged, and explicitly identifies it as the sole path to set the victory flag and advance the turn counter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_character_sheet.

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 the behavior for different data types (replacement vs merge) and mentions invariant validation. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or list when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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