update_character

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It warns that overwriting a locked appearance causes a face change across the whole film, explains that AI extraction will not overwrite locked fields, and instructs that the profile must be unlocked with 0 before further edits. This far exceeds a typical 'update' description.

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 tight and information-dense. The purpose, post-update image regeneration requirement, cost, and the critical profile-lock logic each earn their place. The ★ marker effectively highlights the non-obvious locking behavior without adding padding.

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 10-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what can be updated, the lock/unlock workflow, side effects on images, and cost. It does not specify the return value or explicitly address partial versus full update semantics, but the field list and optional schema properties make the intent reasonably clear.

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 20%, so the description must compensate. It does for the important profile_locked parameter by explaining lock/unlock semantics and consequences, and it maps the Chinese field list to the schema properties. Other parameters remain free-form without enumerated values, but their labels are mostly self-explanatory.

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 opens with 改角色设定 ('update character settings') and enumerates the editable facets: name, appearance, age stage, ethnicity, gender, personality, role, and profile lock. This makes the verb, resource, and scope explicit and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_character and generate_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?

It provides clear context: after changes, character design images and related images must be regenerated, and the tool is free. The profile_locked block gives actionable guidance, saying that when locked, changes require passing 0 to unlock. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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