give_item

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

Discloses important behaviors: the item is given 'for keeps' (permanent transfer) and 'they remember' with memories surviving midnight (persistence across game cycles). Also mentions server ownership of authored reaction in gm_note and narrative constraints. However, it omits side effects (e.g., item removal from inventory), error conditions, and return value, which are critical given the lack of 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds behavioral context but could be more structured. Overall, it is efficient, though slightly cryptic.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, error handling, return values, or usage prerequisites. The behavioral transparency helps but does not compensate for the missing structured information, making it inadequate for confident invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It only identifies the parameters implicitly via 'hands an NPC an item' but never explains that npc_key and item_key are identifiers, their expected format, or how to obtain them. This leaves the agent with minimal to no guidance on parameter values.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'hands an NPC an item, for keeps.' The verb 'hands' is specific and the resource (NPC, item) is identified. It distinguishes from siblings like give_artifact or use_item by emphasizing permanence ('for keeps') and memory persistence, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as give_artifact, use_item, or buy/sell. The description implies permanence but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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