le_set_player_form

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden but fails to mention specific behavior such as side effects, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible.

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?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it may be too brief given the tool's context, missing an opportunity to structure additional useful information without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's placement among many similar mutation tools and the lack of an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify the meaning of 'form' in the game context, nor does it explain what happens after setting the value (e.g., immediate effect, return value).

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 input schema has three parameters with one required. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only indicating the value range (0-100). With 67% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the missing parameter documentation but does not. The 'player' and 'playerid' parameters are left unexplained in the description.

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 (Set), the resource (player form), the allowed range (0-100), and a constraint (Career Mode only). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like le_set_player_fitness, le_set_player_morale, and le_set_player_sharpness.

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. The only constraint given is 'Career Mode only', but there is no mention of prerequisites, best practices, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other set tools.

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