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 mutation operation ('update') but does not specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. The advice on conditions adds some context, but overall, it lacks critical behavioral details for a mutation tool with 20 parameters.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. The two sentences earn their place by providing essential information about optional fields and condition handling. There is no unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (20 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not cover the full range of parameters, explain the update behavior for nested structures like 'stats' or 'spellSlots', or describe the response. For a mutation tool with high complexity and low schema coverage, more comprehensive guidance 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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. It clarifies that 'All fields except id are optional,' which is not explicit in the schema (though implied by required parameters). It also provides specific guidance for the 'conditions' parameter, explaining how to use arrays for replacement versus 'addConditions'/'removeConditions' for granular control. This compensates for the low schema description coverage (15%) by adding practical usage details.

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: 'Update character properties.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('character properties'), making the action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_party_member' or 'update_item', which may also involve updates, so it lacks 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 that 'All fields except id are optional' and gives specific advice for conditions, but does not indicate prerequisites, when to choose this over tools like 'create_character' or 'delete_character', or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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