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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful semantic context beyond them: no round increment and, crucially, that round-based effects (Rage expiry, concentration, durations) do not fire. It could still clarify whether turn-start effects trigger, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the sibling contrast and then parameter provenance. It is dense but every clause carries weight; the em-dash-heavy phrasing is slightly harder to scan but not wasteful.

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 mutating, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers what it changes and what it deliberately avoids, which is the critical information. Edge cases such as an invalid/absent combatantId are left unstated, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents combatantId, combatId, and includeContext – including '(from combat-get)' and '(default true)'. The description largely restates what the schema already carries, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action (jump to a combatant's turn) on a specific resource, and immediately contrasts it with combat-next-turn so the agent can distinguish it from the sibling without reading schemas. The scope constraints (no intermediate cycling, no round increment) sharpen the purpose further.

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 names the alternative (repeated combat-next-turn) and the behavioral condition that selects this tool over it (no round-based effects firing). It also tells the agent where combatant IDs come from (combat-get), so invocation context is complete.

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