expire_auras

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation operation ('remove') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether removal is reversible, what happens to associated effects, or error conditions. The behavioral context is minimal beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, return values, and error handling, which are crucial for safe invocation in a game management context.

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 50% (only 'currentRound' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With two parameters and partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the gap, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('check for and remove') and resource ('auras that have exceeded their duration'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_auras' (read-only) and 'remove_aura' (manual removal), but doesn't explicitly name these 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_aura' or 'advance_effect_durations', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active session or combat round tracking. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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