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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: the condition is removed at 0 and the result can be null. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the outcome, though it does not cover edge cases like missing conditions or already-at-0.

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 description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the PF2e scope and clearly states the operation and its result. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and result behavior. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a basic decrement operation, and the schema already documents the parameter domain.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the list of valued conditions in the slug enum. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Decrease'), a specific resource ('a valued condition'), and a concrete effect (by 1, removal at 0). It also scopes to PF2e and distinguishes from sibling tools like increase/set/remove by implying a decrement operation on valued conditions only.

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 makes the intended use clear (decrease valued condition by 1) and implicitly restricts to valued conditions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The agent must infer from the context that this is for valued conditions only, and that set/increase/remove are alternatives.

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