create_troop

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function, omitting details like whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., does it auto-link with maps?). The word 'Create' implies mutation but no further transparency.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a clarifying parenthetical. No unnecessary words; every part is informative.

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, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return value, success conditions, or any subsequent steps. It does not explain what the agent should expect after creation, which is important for a mutation tool.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal context beyond 'enemy group,' not elaborating on the format or constraints of the 'members' parameter (e.g., required fields like enemyId, x, y are not mentioned).

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('troop') with a clarifying parenthetical ('enemy group for battle encounters'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_enemy' and 'create_boss_enemy' by specifying the group aspect, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'create_random_encounter_troop' or others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other troop-creation tools among siblings.

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