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 mentions that the description is 'immutable once created,' which is a crucial behavioral trait. However, it doesn't address other important aspects like what 'persistent' means in practice, whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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—just one sentence with two clauses. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional feature without any wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (7 parameters, creation operation) and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'persistent' entails, how rooms fit into the broader system (e.g., world or session context), what the tool returns, or error conditions. For a creation tool in what appears to be a game/world-building context, more contextual information is needed.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. With 86% schema description coverage (high), the schema already documents most parameters well. The description's mention of 'immutable description' aligns with the 'baseDescription' parameter's schema description, but doesn't provide additional context. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Create a persistent room with immutable description. Optionally links to previous room.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('persistent room'), and mentions the optional linking feature. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_world' or 'generate_terrain_patch', which might also create spatial elements.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that linking to a previous room is optional, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_world' for broader world-building or 'generate_terrain_patch' for terrain generation). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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