optimize_jewel

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: explains the algorithm (marginal gain ranking, mod independence), states the tool is read-only ('the build is restored'), and describes what the output is (a jewel to socket with equip_jewel). No contradictions.

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 yet informative, covering purpose, algorithm, usage, and output in a few sentences. It is well-structured, starting with the main action and providing details. Slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value.

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 tool that optimizes jewels, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works (algorithm), usage instructions (base selection), limitations (no radius jewels), output (jewel to equip), and side effects (read-only). With an output schema present, the description complements it well.

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 description adds meaning to parameters: it explains the base parameter (Emerald=dex, etc.) and mentions metric/goals as a weighted blend. However, rolls is not explained. Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well but not fully.

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 tool's purpose: 'Craft the best-in-slot rare JEWEL for the active build'. It uses a specific verb ('Craft') and resource ('rare JEWEL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like equip_jewel (which sockets) and optimize_item (which optimizes non-jewel items).

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 provides usage context: how to pick a base matching the socket's attribute (Emerald=dex, etc.), and explicitly states Radius/Time-Lost jewels are not modelled. It implies using equip_jewel after. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios like non-rare jewels or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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