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

Annotations only indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive call. The description adds behavioral context by revealing that the tool does not automatically roll initiative or start combat, and that actorId must be resolved beforehand. It does not address edge cases like duplicate actors, but the key sequencing behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences convey both the operation and the full prerequisite/follow-up workflow. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and an explicit workflow, the description is largely complete. It omits return-value details, but no output schema exists and the core invocation path is fully specified.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by directing the agent to use actor-list or actor-filter FIRST to obtain the required actorId, which directly supports correct invocation.

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 opens with 'Add actor to combat', a concrete verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like combat-remove-combatant or combat-set-initiative. The operation is unambiguous.

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 an explicit workflow: use actor-list or actor-filter FIRST to find actorId, then add combatants, then call combat-roll-all-initiative before combat-start. It does not list explicit 'when not to use' conditions, but the sequential context is clear and actionable.

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