Character Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a partial update, that no rule calculation happens in the bridge, and that data is the dict of fields to PUT. This is useful, non-obvious behavioral information. It does not cover authorization, error behavior, or exact merge semantics, but the most important caveat is clearly stated.

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 two short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core action, then adds the critical behavioral constraint, then defines the main parameter. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core behavior, the partial-update scope, and the caller's responsibility for computed values. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. It is slightly light on permission or error details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a bridge 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that data is the dict of fields to PUT, which is the key non-obvious parameter. character_id is self-explanatory from its name and the update-a-character-sheet context. The description adds enough semantic value beyond the bare schema for the two parameters.

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 a specific action and resource: partial update of a character sheet. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly saying the bridge does not perform rule calculations for SAN/HP/Luck/MP/spell slots, making it clear this is a persistence operation, not a game-logic one. This separates it from sibling tools like character_create, character_get, and token_hp.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you want to partially update a character card with values already computed by the caller. The '局部更新' wording and the no-rule-calculation note make the intended use fairly explicit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the scope is clear enough.

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