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

Goes well beyond the annotations: script macros execute with GM rights, are gated behind a default-off module setting, and there is no direct return payload ('returns only that it ran'). This tells the agent about privilege escalation and irreversibility concerns that destructiveHint=true alone does not convey.

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 dense sentences: execution semantics first, then side effects and return behavior. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly closes the loop by saying where results appear (chat-list or the world) instead of what is returned. The module-setting gate and GM-rights caveat cover the main risk an agent needs to know before calling.

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% and the schema descriptions already explain that actorId/tokenId become 'actor' and 'token' inside the macro. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Run a macro') and immediately distinguishes the two execution modes (chat macro posts a command, script macro runs JavaScript). Among siblings like macro-list/macro-get/macro-create, 'run' plus the hotbar-button analogy makes the operation unmistakable.

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?

Gives the operational context (equivalent to clicking the hotbar button) and a prerequisite: the Allow Script Macros module setting, off by default. It does not explicitly say when to prefer macro-get or macro-update first, but the usage condition is clear.

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