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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses real behavior: skipping combatants who are out of the fight, wrapping into a new round, requiring GM privileges, and returning the battle object. That is meaningful operational context an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the permission gate, then the return value — a sensible ordering with no filler. The clause "when it comes round" is mildly redundant with "next," but the overall length is appropriate.

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?

No output schema exists, so "Returns: The battle" carries the return-value burden and does so only minimally. It also omits edge behavior that matters for a state mutation: what happens when the turn passes the last combatant, or if the battle has not been started or has ended.

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 both `campaign` and `battle` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about either identifier, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves this at the baseline.

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 conveys a specific action: advancing the combat turn order, skipping participants who are out of the fight, and rolling into a new round on wrap. The phrasing "the next one in the order" is slightly coy about the resource, but combined with the round-wrap clause it is unambiguous that this is battle turn advancement, distinguishable from start_battle/end_battle/update_battle siblings.

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?

"GM only" gives a clear permission constraint, and the turn/round language implies use during an active battle. However, it never states when-not to use it (e.g. before a battle is started, or when the battle has ended) nor names the related siblings such as start_battle or end_battle as alternatives.

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