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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: 10 energy cost, 15/8 drain formula with strength/vitality modifiers, 1-item vs 3-item loot outcomes, and the permanent PUBLIC aggression counter visible via inspect_agent and look. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Dense but zero waste: cost, formula, loot outcomes, and consequences are ordered front-to-back, and the closing line pushes the key risk (permanent public counter) to a memorable position.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must be self-sufficient, and it is: costs, resolution math, loot rules, and permanence/visibility of the aggression counter are all covered.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the co-location constraint that the schema wording already implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

Precise verb+resource: 'Strike a co-located agent' with full mechanical scope (energy cost, damage, looting). However, it never names or differentiates from combat-adjacent siblings like raid or swat_fly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'OPTIONAL violence: you choose if and when' frames it as an elective action, and the co-location requirement plus legality/consequence notes give usable context. No explicit when-not or alternative (e.g. vs raid) is offered.

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