rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (apply effects) and includes power level guidelines and mechanics, but it does not address critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the effect is reversible, potential side effects, or how conflicts with existing effects are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed guidelines and an example. However, it is lengthy and includes extensive lists (e.g., power levels, mechanic types) that could be streamlined. While informative, some sentences may not earn their place in terms of conciseness, making it moderately efficient but not optimal.

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 (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job of providing context. It covers parameter meanings thoroughly and includes an example that illustrates usage. However, it lacks information on return values or error handling, and behavioral aspects are under-addressed, preventing a perfect score.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides extensive parameter semantics: it explains 'power_level' with detailed guidelines (1-5), lists 'mechanics' types, and includes a comprehensive example that clarifies the meaning and usage of nearly all parameters (e.g., 'target_id', 'duration', 'triggers'). This adds substantial 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 tool's purpose: 'Apply a custom effect (divine boon, curse, transformation) to a target.' This specifies the verb ('apply'), resource ('custom effect'), and scope (boon/curse/transformation). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_aura' or 'remove_custom_effect', which limits the score to 4.

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. It lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'create_aura' or 'apply_map_patch'). The example illustrates usage but does not offer explicit when/when-not instructions, resulting in minimal guidance.

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