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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-effects ('no features, proficiencies, HP, or trackables are granted'), constraints ('levels must sum to EXACTLY that totalLevel'), side effects ('updates core.class, appends a note'), and return shape. It also explains the rejection behavior clearly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, constraints, non-effects, side effects, return value, and follow-up. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids 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 tool with complex game-rule constraints, the description covers prerequisites, validation rules, side effects, and the follow-up call. The output schema exists for return-value details, and the description still summarizes the return shape as { character, summary }.

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 has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description adds useful semantic context about the recordOptions[], subclassLevel, and totalLevel contract from the prerequisite call, even though it does not document actual invocation parameters because none exist.

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 verb and resource: it records the existing class(es) and level(s) of a class-less 5e24 character so the level-up wizard can proceed. It clearly distinguishes this from the normal level-up flow and from vault_get_levelup_options by calling it the 'class-less on-ramp'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only for a hand-made 5e24 character with no Class entries, and it names the prerequisite call to vault_get_levelup_options first. It also states when the tool is rejected ('Rejected once any class entry exists') and tells the agent to call vault_get_levelup_options again after success.

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