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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the action-economy implication (out-of-combat use is free, in-combat costs the action) and that effects can be routed to a dying tablemate. It stops short of saying whether the item is consumed from inventory, what happens if the character lacks the item, or whether failure is recoverable — real gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary use case comes first, the routing constraint second, which is the order an agent needs them.

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 tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, targets, and the alternative tool. What remains thin is post-invocation behavior — item consumption and failure modes — which matters here because no annotations exist to cover it.

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, and the description adds a bit beyond it: "any of the four grades" clarifies that itemName expects a specific grade name rather than a generic potion type, and "work a healer's kit over a dying tablemate" motivates the optional targetId.

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 ("Use an item at the desk between scenes") and immediately grounds it with concrete examples (healing potion grades, goodberry, healer's kit on a dying tablemate). It also carves itself apart from the sibling that handles the in-combat equivalent, ad_submit_action.

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 an explicit when: between scenes, out of combat, at the desk. And an explicit when-not with the named alternative: in combat use ad_submit_action, with the reason (it costs the action). Nothing is left to inference.

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