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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: one submission per character per window and a 409 on duplicate submissions. It omits auth/ownership requirements, whether a submission can be amended before resolution, and what a successful response looks like.

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 tight sentences with the core instruction, a formatting example, and the constraint/error behavior front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Covers purpose, input formatting, and the main failure mode for a simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema. The remaining gap is the success response shape and whether submissions are mutable, which an agent might need.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to 'body' — plain language, exact target and spell names, with a concrete example. It adds nothing beyond the schema for tableId or characterId, but those are self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: submit one character action for the current scene window, in plain language. The scope constraint ('one action per character per window') and the naming convention make it clearly distinct from siblings like ad_resolve_window or ad_get_rolls.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call (during the current scene window, once per character) and an example of correct input. It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as ad_resolve_window for advancing the window or ad_get_rolls for outcomes, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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