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 'Update or create', implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing data, error conditions, or side effects. The familiarity progression hint adds minimal context but lacks operational details. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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—two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a helpful hint about familiarity levels. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (mutation with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on return values or errors. The high schema coverage helps, but for a mutation tool, more guidance is needed to ensure correct agent invocation.

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. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'Familiarity' with an enum progression, but the schema already documents this with enum values and description. No additional syntax, format, or usage details are given for parameters.

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 ('Update or create') and the resource ('PC-NPC relationship'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on relationship management, unlike tools like 'update_character' or 'get_npc_relationship'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools not in the list, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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, when not to use it, or reference sibling tools like 'get_npc_relationship' for checking existing relationships or 'interact_socially' for social interactions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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