update_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions mutation ('update') and the kind constraint, but does not detail side effects, error handling, idempotency, or what happens on kind mismatch. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise at two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action. However, it lacks structured grouping of information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, discriminated union patch, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'object' is, what the patch modifies, or what the output schema returns. The description fails to provide a complete picture.

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?

The description only adds meaning to the patch.kind constraint. The other two parameters (scene_name, item_id) are not explained. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate. The added constraint is useful but minimal.

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 states 'Update one object' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It also adds a constraint about patch.kind, which helps define the scope. However, it could be more specific about the context (e.g., updating an object in a scene).

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 description provides a constraint ('patch.kind must match its existing object kind'), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_scene_patch, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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