tickerbot_update_universe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that add/remove adjust subsets without replacing the whole list, that tickers replaces entirely, and that system universes cannot be edited. It does not mention return values or failure modes, but covers the most critical behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause adds value. No wasted words.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers all parameter modes and the key restriction on system universes. It doesn't describe the response or partial-update semantics, but the scope is well covered for an update operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining how parameters relate: name/description relabel, tickers replace the whole list, add/remove adjust subsets. This provides operational insight beyond individual field descriptions.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('one of the caller's universes'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting system universes cannot be edited. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains the different update modes (relabel via name/description, replace via tickers, adjust via add/remove) and explicitly states system universes are off-limits. While it doesn't name create_universe as an alternative, the 'Update' wording implies existing universes, providing clear context.

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