admin_update_points

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('update') and an access rule ('White team only'), but omits side effects, validation, error behavior, and whether this overwrites prior values. This is minimal but not absent.

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, no filler. Every word adds information: action and authorization.

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 two-parameter write operation, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It lacks an explanation of return values or side effects on scoreboard, but these are not essential for invoking the operation. The 'White team only' inclusion is valuable context given the admin sibling set.

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%, with both 'service_id' and 'points' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter nuance, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly identifies the action ('update') and the resource ('service point values'), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as admin_update_host and admin_update_port. 'White team only' adds a scope/authorization constraint.

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 usage guidance is the 'White team only' role restriction, which tells the agent who may invoke the tool but does not explain when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no mention of when-not to use it or references to similar admin_update_* tools, so the context is implied rather than explicit.

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