Headpat

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the energy cost, that a reaction is broadcast on femboy://speech/live, diminishing returns near 100 affection, and a persistent tally that unlocks an achievement and accessory at 100. That is exactly the side-effect and progression context an agent needs for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then mechanics/cost, then progression. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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, and the description fills that gap by explaining what visibly happens (out-loud reaction on the live speech channel) and the durable consequences (tally, achievement, accessory). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, and both parameters (note, intensity with its 1-10 band breakdown) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Give the companion a headpat") plus its immediate effect (raises affection, costs energy), which is clearly distinct from siblings like femboy_give_item or femboy_say. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Conveys when this is a good action (wanting affection/patience gains) and a built-in caution that it "strongly saturates near 100 affection," which effectively signals diminishing returns. It does not name alternative tools or state hard preconditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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