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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the 3-item cap, that unattuned items grant no magic, and the side effect that attuning also identifies the item. Missing are failure behavior at the cap and whether attunement costs time or resources beyond 'between scenes'.

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 sentences, each carrying a distinct mechanic (action, cap, consequence), with the core action front-loaded. No 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential mechanics and constraint well. It stops short of describing what happens on a failed 4th attunement or what the call returns.

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%, so itemName, characterId, and the attune flag (including its default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail (e.g., case sensitivity of itemName) beyond that, 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?

Specific verb (attune/unattune) plus resource (a magic item) and the temporal scope (between scenes). It also distinguishes itself from ad_identify_item by noting that attuning also identifies the item.

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?

States the timing condition (between scenes) and the hard cap (max 3 attuned), which tells the agent when the call is legal. It does not name an alternative tool for the identify-only case, leaving that inference to the reader.

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