Change potion effects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=false, but the description adds three things they don't: the clear-then-remove-then-add resolution order, the return value ('answers with the effects the player has afterwards'), and the player_offline failure mode. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens when add targets an effect the player already has.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: actions, ordering, return value, and precondition. The ordering constraint is front-loaded where an agent will read it before composing arguments.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by stating what the call returns. Precondition and error code are covered, which is the main failure mode for this tool. Nested effect objects in add are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given the 75% coverage.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema, including clear ('Take away every effect first') and the add fields. The description's ordering sentence is genuinely additive because it fixes how clear, remove and add interact within a single call, which the schema never states. Beyond that, no format or validation detail is supplied.

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 opens with a specific set of verbs and a precise resource: give, take away, or clear a player's potion effects. Scope (a single player) is unambiguous. It stops short of naming the sibling world_effect, so an agent must infer the player-vs-world split from the parameter names alone.

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?

Offers real operational guidance: the three actions resolve in a stated order, and the player must be online or the call fails with player_offline. It never states when to prefer this over world_effect or get_player, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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