rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a removal operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether removal is permanent, error handling (e.g., if effect doesn't exist), or side effects (e.g., affecting target state). 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by specifying the removal method.

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 (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, return values, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for safe invocation. For a tool that likely modifies game state, this leaves critical gaps.

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. It mentions 'by ID or by name,' hinting at parameters like effect_id and effect_name, but doesn't explain the other three parameters (target_id, target_type, sessionId) or their relationships (e.g., whether target_type is required with target_id). The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 action ('Remove') and resource ('custom effect'), specifying it can be done 'by ID or by name.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_aura' or 'remove_item' by focusing on custom effects, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'advance_effect_durations' or 'process_effect_triggers' that might handle effects differently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a sessionId), when not to use it (e.g., for built-in effects), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_custom_effects' for listing effects first. The description is purely functional without context.

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