Random moveset

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing exactly what is mutated (SaveData.MovesetIndex and MCP state) and that it returns a live-switch snippet. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the flags. It stops short of saying whether the previous moveset is recoverable or what the snippet format is.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the side effects trailing. Dense but every clause carries information; 'MCP state' and 'live-switch snippet' are the only jargon that could use unpacking.

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 zero-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the persistence target, and the return artifact, which is close to sufficient. Remaining gaps are modest: no statement about reversibility or how the returned snippet is meant to be applied.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Optional filter on name/file'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no filtering syntax or scope detail, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 ('pick a random moveset') plus the two follow-on effects (persist, return snippet), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It implicitly separates itself from reanim_random_dance and reanim_switch_moveset via the moveset resource, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With close alternatives like reanim_random_dance, reanim_surprise_me, and reanim_switch_moveset in the sibling list, an agent has no stated condition telling it which to pick, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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