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

Annotations are minimal (all hints false, no readOnly or destructive flags), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect: 'creates it at 1 if absent', and restricts applicability via 'PF2e only' and 'valued conditions'. It does not mention error behavior for non-valued conditions, but the main mutation behavior is transparent. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with a mutating action).

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 two short sentences, zero filler, and front-loads the system restriction ('PF2e only') before the action. Every phrase earns its place: the mechanism (increase by 1), the create-if-absent behavior, and the valued-condition scope are all covered.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, under what conditions, and how it handles absent conditions. It doesn't describe return values or failure modes, but these are less critical for a direct increment action. Given the sibling context and schema coverage, the description is nearly complete.

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%: both parameters (actorId, slug) have descriptions, and the slug enum lists valued conditions with explicit examples. The description reinforces that the operation is meaningful only for valued conditions, which is also implied by the schema's slug description. No significant added meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the operation ('Increase a valued condition by 1'), the resource (condition), and the scope ('PF2e only', 'Meaningful only for valued conditions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pf2e-decrease-condition, pf2e-set-condition, and pf2e-remove-condition by specifying direction (increase) and value-type restriction, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for PF2e valued conditions where you want to increment by 1, and explicitly scopes to valued conditions ('Meaningful only for valued conditions'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use pf2e-set-condition to set to a specific value'). The sibling list makes alternatives evident, so this is a clear context without explicit exclusions.

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