Assign actor ownership

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: exact match semantics and no partial-name matching, GM exclusion, bulk confirmation requirement, and read-back reporting of each pair including unchanged ones. This goes well beyond the idempotentHint/readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and paints a clear operational picture.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the purpose and example, then state constraints and reporting behavior. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a permission-assignment tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: valid input patterns, edge cases (exact match, GM exclusion), bulk handling, and the fact that results are reported back including unchanged pairs. An agent can confidently invoke it without missing key constraints.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic layers: it explains matching rules, the 'all friendly NPCs' and 'party' special values are contextualized with examples, and it clarifies that the operation is non-destructive and idempotent in effect. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with 'Give players a permission level on actors', a specific verb and resource, and reinforces it with concrete examples (John as owner of Aragorn, party observer access to friendly NPCs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-actor-ownership and remove-actor-ownership, even without naming them.

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 clear context and invocation rules: exact matching (id or name, case-insensitive, never partial), Gamemasters are never changed, and confirmBulkOperation is required when affecting multiple actors/players. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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