rpg-mcp

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. It states the tool creates a party, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or response format. The example shows input structure but not behavioral traits like what happens if worldId is invalid or how initialMembers are validated.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a comprehensive example. Every sentence (and the example) earns its place by demonstrating usage without redundancy. The structure is efficient and zero-waste.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The example compensates for parameter gaps but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, permissions). It's complete enough to understand basic usage but insufficient for robust agent invocation without additional assumptions.

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. The example effectively illustrates all 5 parameters (name, description, worldId, initialMembers, sessionId) with concrete values, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies that initialMembers is an array of objects with characterId and role, though it doesn't explain optionality or defaults beyond the schema's enum for role.

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 creates a new party (adventuring group), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_party' or 'update_party' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar creation tools like 'create_character' or 'create_world'.

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 (e.g., needing an existing world or characters), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add_party_member' for modifying existing parties.

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