emotion_apply_deltas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'update values' without explaining whether deltas are additive, if values are clamped, or what the return/effects are. This lacks the disclosure expected 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 one short sentence plus a usage pointer, with no filler words. It front-loads the action and is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has a complex nested object and no output schema. The description gives workflow context with emotion_get_analysis_prompt but omits return value expectations and behavioral details, making it incomplete for a state-changing tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, including the delta object format and user_id description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('submit emotion delta JSON to update values') and names the paired tool (emotion_get_analysis_prompt). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like emotion_set or emotion_apply_decay.

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 explicitly says to use with emotion_get_analysis_prompt after analysis completes, providing a clear usage context. It does not name when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but the pairing instruction is specific.

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