gameforge_register_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it computes orthographic pixel height, deterministically seeds, and 'locks' Paper-Doll bone sockets — implying a mutation with a locking step. However it omits permission requirements, whether re-registering an existing character_id overwrites or fails, and whether 'locking' is reversible. Useful but incomplete for a 10-param mutation tool.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, then the three computed side effects. No filler or redundancy. It borders on cramped — three distinct behaviors stacked without separation — but every clause earns its place.

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 10-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core action and the derived values but never states what is returned (the computed pixel height, the seed, socket metadata) or the prerequisite project context. Adequate to start an invocation, not adequate to invoke confidently.

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 50%, so several parameters (project_id, mesh_3d_path, turnaround_sheet_path, display_name) are undocumented anywhere. The description does add value for height_meters by giving the exact formula (height_m * cos(pitch) * PPU), although pitch and PPU are not parameters, and it implicitly touches paperdoll_enabled and lore_and_visual_prompt. It does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Register a playable hero, NPC, mob, mount, or boss in the Project Vault' — matching the enum roles in the schema. It also names three concrete side effects (pixel height computation, seed generation, bone socket locking). It does not differentiate itself from near siblings like gameforge_build_complete_character_slice or gameforge_blender_rig_and_sockets, which an agent could easily confuse with registration.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that a project must exist via gameforge_init_project), and no guidance on ordering relative to rig/socket or sprite-generation tools. The agent must infer that registration precedes the downstream build pipeline.

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