Create actors from a compendium

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, offering no safety or behavioral detail. The description compensates fully by disclosing limits (10 copies, maxActorsPerRequest), the link behavior (keeps a link, never its id), image handling (remote token image dropped), preflight checks (everything that could refuse is checked), and response content (lists actors, tokens, and problems). This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 efficient and front-loaded, starting with the core action before moving to prerequisites, constraints, and behaviors. It contains no tautology or filler; every sentence adds a distinct piece of information. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but the density justifies the length, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, making it relatively complex. The description covers the preflight checks, limits, and a summary of the response format ('lists every actor with its real name, the placed tokens and every problem'). It doesn't detail the exact response structure, but given no output schema, this is a reasonable level of completeness. It could mention possible error types more explicitly, but the overall context is well covered.

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 every parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The description adds minimal extra parameter-specific meaning; it reiterates the limit and mentions the folder, but the schema already covers quantity semantics and placement options. Consequently, the description meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding substantial new parameter insight.

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 states a specific verb ('Copy'), a precise resource ('one actor entry of a compendium'), and the target ('into the world, into the folder Foundry MCP Creatures'). It also mentions optional token placement, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dnd5e-add-features-from-compendium that copy features, not actors. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly instructs users to find packId and itemId with search-compendium first, which is a clear prerequisite. It also defines limits (at most 10 copies, maxActorsPerRequest) and explains when placement occurs (optionally with addToScene). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to exclude, but the clear scope and prerequisite offer solid usage guidance.

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