gameforge_define_combat_framedata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a persistence/mutation operation ('define') but never states whether data is created or overwritten, whether frames must be consistent with total_frames, what validation applies, or what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action verb comes first and the field list earns its place. It is dense with parentheticals but still readable.

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 an 11-parameter write-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the data represents but omits lifecycle behavior (create vs. update, validation, tie to character_id/project_id) that an agent needs before invoking 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 64%, and the description restates most of those documented fields (fps, total_frames, startup/active/recovery, hitstop ms, AABB hitboxes) without adding syntax beyond the schema. Undocumented parameters such as looping, damage_multiplier, and knockback_px_per_sec get no compensating explanation.

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 ('Define') plus a precise resource ('animation & action-combat frame data') with an enumerated field list. No sibling tool touches combat frame data, so it is implicitly distinguished from the rig/atlas/export tools, though no sibling is named.

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?

The description never says when to call this versus alternatives, nor what precedes it (e.g., after register_character or sprite generation), nor whether it can be called repeatedly. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'for crisp platformer or ARPG combat'.

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