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. It mentions 'increment character level' and 'optionally update stats', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's irreversible, what happens to other stats (e.g., ability scores), or if it triggers side effects (e.g., level-up bonuses). The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Increment character level') and adds optional details. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or outcomes.

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 (a mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated character object), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a level-up operation in a game context, more detail is needed to ensure correct 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 75%, with three parameters well-described (characterId, hpIncrease, targetLevel) and one undocumented (sessionId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optionally update stats like HP', which loosely maps to hpIncrease, but doesn't explain sessionId or provide additional context (e.g., default behavior for targetLevel). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Increment character level') and the resource ('character'), and mentions optional stat updates ('optionally update stats like HP'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_xp' or 'update_character' by focusing specifically on level progression. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_level_progression', which might be related.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring XP or meeting conditions), exclusions (e.g., not for NPCs), or compare to siblings like 'add_xp' or 'update_character' for stat adjustments. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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