update_tag

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

The write nature of the tool is conveyed and does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false annotations, but the description adds nothing on top of them: no indication that unspecified fields are preserved, nothing about live vs batch execution, and nothing about whether changes are saved back to the sprite.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming verb then resource then mutable fields. Zero waste, though the extreme terseness is part of why behavior and parameters go under-explained.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers only a subset of the surface. Batch/live behavior, the save flag, sprite targeting, and the required tag argument are all left to the schema.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by mapping natural-language concepts to parameters ('range' to from/to, 'direction' to aniDir, plus repeats, color, data, name). It still omits sprite, backend, save, properties, and the required tag identifier, so the gap is only partially closed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes a tag's name, range, direction, repeats, color or data') and the field list distinguishes it from add_tag/delete_tag. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (the tag must already exist), and no reference to the sibling alternatives add_tag or delete_tag for the create/remove cases. Usage is only implied by the verb 'changes'.

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