give_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the character doesn't exist or the item is invalid, whether the addition is permanent or reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, 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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral implications like error conditions or side effects, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies game state, this leaves too much undefined.

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 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'character's inventory' and 'item', which loosely maps to 'characterId' and 'itemId', but doesn't explain what these IDs represent, what 'sessionId' is for, or the meaning of 'quantity' beyond its numeric constraint. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Add') and target ('to a character's inventory'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transfer_item' or 'batch_distribute_items' that might also add items to inventories, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 'transfer_item' or 'batch_distribute_items'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a valid character or item, or whether the character must be alive/accessible. This leaves significant gaps in usage context.

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