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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds the key dnd5e-only restriction plus the concrete add/remove semantics and a list of core status IDs. There is no contradiction, and the extra behavioral context is useful but not exhaustive.

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 most important selection criteria (system restriction and PF2e alternatives) are front-loaded in the first sentence. The status ID list is the only substantial addition and is directly useful for invocation, with no redundant 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 simple toggle tool with four well-documented parameters, the description supplies the system scoping, alternative routing, and valid status IDs needed to call it correctly. No output schema exists, but the operation's return value is not essential for selection or invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by enumerating the core D&D 5e statusIds and giving examples, which is especially helpful because no enum is defined in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Toggle a D&D 5e condition/status on an actor.' It also disambiguates from PF2e sibling tools by naming pf2e-set-condition and pf2e-remove-condition, so an agent can distinguish this from the large sibling list.

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?

It gives an explicit system constraint ('dnd5e worlds only') and explicit direction for PF2e worlds, naming the correct alternative tools. This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected over its closest siblings.

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