Set outfit

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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: rare/legendary outfits and catalogued accessories consume an achievement (femboy_progress), and free-form accessories get registered as owned — a side effect the annotations do not convey. It leaves the cost's permanence (consumed vs checked) ambiguous.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the gating caveats following. The final sentence is dense with two distinct rules (catalogued vs free-form accessories) compressed together, slightly raising parse cost.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, this covers action, input forms, and the achievement-cost side effect well. Remaining gaps are error behavior on unknown names/insufficient achievements and whether the achievement is consumed, which matter for an agent deciding whether to call 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, but the description adds value beyond it: it explains the dual name/ref_id acceptance with a concrete example and ties the accessory to the same gating logic as outfits. The omit-vs-null distinction is already in the schema, so it earns no extra credit there.

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?

"Dress the chibi: change the current outfit and optionally the accessory" gives a concrete verb (change/dress) plus the resource (chibi outfit, optional accessory). No sibling tool in the list touches outfit state, so the scope is unambiguous and an agent can select it immediately.

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?

It specifies accepted identifier forms (display name vs ref_id) and states the gating condition for rare/legendary skins and catalogued accessories. It does not need explicit when-not-to-use guidance because no sibling overlaps, but it stops short of saying what happens on an unknown outfit name.

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