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 implies a write operation ('Record') but doesn't state whether this requires permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or how the memory is stored/retrieved. The importance levels add some context, but critical behavioral traits like side effects or error handling are missing.

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 ('Record a significant conversation/interaction') and adds brief elaboration on importance. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage hints). Overall, it's appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 write operation with 6 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recording' entails (e.g., storage format, retrieval methods), error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely modifies game state, more behavioral and contextual details are needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 83% (high), so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description only mentions 'importance' with examples ('low (chat), medium, high (plot), critical'), which adds minimal value beyond the schema's enum and description. It doesn't explain other parameters like 'characterId' or 'topics', but the schema adequately covers them.

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 verb ('Record') and resource ('significant conversation/interaction'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_narrative_note' by focusing on conversations rather than general notes, but doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'get_conversation_history' or 'get_recent_interactions', which are read operations. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 mentions importance levels (e.g., 'low (chat), medium, high (plot), critical') but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'add_narrative_note' for non-conversation contexts. Without explicit usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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