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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral details: it does not increment the round, avoids round-based effects like Rage expiry and concentration checks, and that includeContext defaults to true appending tactical context. These are substantive and not implied by the annotations.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains the key distinction and why to use it, and the third covers source of IDs and the includeContext parameter. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 only three parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, behavioral impact, and parameter provenance. There is no missing information an agent needs to correctly invoke this 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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal value by explicitly stating the purpose of includeContext ('appends the tactical context') and reminding the agent to obtain combatant IDs from combat-get, which reinforces schema content without contradicting it.

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 ('Jump directly to'), a specific resource ('a specific combatant's turn'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it does NOT cycle through intermediate turns or increment the round. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinct from combat-next-turn.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use this tool over alternatives: 'Use this instead of repeated combat-next-turn calls to avoid triggering round-based effects.' It also names the source of required IDs ('Get combatant IDs from combat-get'). Clear and actionable guidance.

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