kill_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully scopes the tool to a 'playtest character', implying a running playtest session is required, but it omits whether the operation errors outside a playtest, whether the kill is reversible, and that only the target player is affected. Useful context, but incomplete for a destructive action.

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 sentence, action front-loaded, with a compact parenthetical for intent. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and rough context adequately, and the schema covers the parameter. It falls short on the preconditions and side effects an agent needs before firing a destructive playtest action (state requirements, error behavior, reversibility).

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 100%: the single optional 'player' parameter, including its 'default: first player' behavior, is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('kill a playtest character') with the intent spelled out (testing death screens, respawn, Entity kills). It is clearly the inverse of respawn_player, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so perfect sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 parenthetical lists scenarios (death screens, respawn, Entity kills), which implies this is a mid-playtest testing action rather than a general operation. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. respawn_player to undo, or stop_playtest), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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