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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: value is exact for valued conditions, ignored for binary conditions, and omitting value applies without a specific number. This goes beyond the annotations, though the meaning of omitting value for a valued condition is slightly ambiguous.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. 'PF2e only' is front-loaded, the core action is stated first, and every sentence earns its place without 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers invocation well. The only minor gap is not clarifying what 'just apply' does for valued conditions, but the core semantics are clear enough for correct use.

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%, but the description adds interpretive value by explaining the valued/binary distinction, the exact-set semantics, and the omission behavior. This meaningfully exceeds what the schema enum and parameter descriptions provide.

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 and resource ('Apply a condition to an actor') and scopes it to PF2e. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like pf2e-increase-condition, pf2e-decrease-condition, and pf2e-remove-condition by emphasizing that value is the 'EXACT value to set' and supporting simple application when omitted.

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 clear usage guidance for valued vs binary conditions and explains when to omit value. However, it does not explicitly route to sibling alternatives (e.g., 'to increment use pf2e-increase-condition'), so the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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