set_party_leader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Set'), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., on party dynamics), or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a state-mutating tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It misses details on behavior, parameters, returns, and error cases, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters (partyId, characterId, sessionId), their formats, or relationships. The prerequisite hint relates to characterId but lacks specifics. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('party leader'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_party_member' or 'update_party' by focusing on leadership assignment. However, it doesn't specify the system context (e.g., RPG party management), leaving some ambiguity.

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 a prerequisite ('character must already be a member'), which offers some guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use scenarios, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'update_party'), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tools.

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