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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that rule-violating changes are refused with an explanation and by noting constraints like 'the dead stay dead.' It still does not describe authentication, rate limits, or return behavior, but the added validation semantics are meaningful.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the opening clause and follows with a compact list of supported updates. It is somewhat dense but appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters, and the second sentence about refusing invalid changes earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema but 100% schema description coverage, the definition gives enough context to understand that it records campaign events and rejects rule-invalid changes. It omits return-value details, but no output schema exists, and annotations cover safety and idempotency traits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters in detail. The description lists many of the same categories (characters, damage, healing, items, gold, rests, location, day, NPCs, quests, initiative, note), but it does not add syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Records,' and resource, a Plot Speaks campaign, and enumerates the kinds of updates it handles. It is clearly a mutation tool for campaign state, but it never names or distinguishes itself from likely siblings such as world_recall, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Records what happened in a Plot Speaks campaign,' which suggests using this tool to log campaign events. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as world_recall or other game tools.

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