admin_update_check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Modify' and 'White team only' but does not disclose whether the update is destructive, triggers side effects like score recalculation, or overwrites existing reasons. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 with no filler. Every word serves a purpose: the action and the access restriction. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks information about return values, side effects, or reversibility. 'White team only' adds some context, and the tool is simple enough that the description is minimally adequate.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (check_id, result, reason), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mapping 'results and reasons' to the schema fields.

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?

Description states 'Modify check results and reasons' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like admin_update_host and admin_update_points. The action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'White team only' implies a usage restriction, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage context is implied by the purpose, not explicitly guided.

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