updateJoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting child objects), error handling for invalid IDs, or mutation scope (partial vs. full updates). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with complex parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's core function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., overwriting vs. merging), return values, error conditions, or interaction with sibling tools like 'createJoints' or 'deleteJoints'. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents the 'items' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying batch updates, which is already clear from the schema's array structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('multiple Joints'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in a single operation'). This distinguishes it from single-update tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateJoints' (if it exists) or other batch tools like 'batchSetProperty'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing Joints), exclusions (e.g., not for creating Joints), or compare to siblings like 'updateJoints' (if single-update) or 'batchSetProperty' (for generic property updates).

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