开新一生

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents and conditional easter eggs, but remains silent on side effects such as whether starting a new life overwrites an existing save, or any state/persistence changes. This is useful but incomplete behavioral information.

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 concise sentences, each contributing distinct information: core action, returned payload, and easter-egg behavior. No filler and front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, returns, and triggers. However, domain terms like '六轴' and '卡' are left undefined, and it doesn't clarify state implications (e.g., does starting anew discard previous progress). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent reasoning about game state.

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?

The schema already thoroughly describes the name parameter (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning by noting that using real AI names or previously returning names may trigger easter eggs, which directly relates to parameter choice and goes beyond the schema's generic 'you give yourself a name'.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('开新的一生' = start a new life) and enumerates the exact return contents (出身, 初始气质, 六轴, 第一张卡的全文含选项). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokenlife_load or tokenlife_choose.

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 implies this tool is the entry point for starting a new life, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., load, choose), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The easter-egg conditions provide some naming-related usage guidance, but not tool-selection guidance.

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