Create a roll table

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

Beyond the flat annotations, the description discloses significant runtime behavior: omitted ranges are assigned consecutively, the dice formula is derived from the highest range, overlapping ranges are refused, and gaps or unrollable numbers produce warnings. This gives an agent a reliable model of what will happen on valid and invalid input.

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 two focused sentences: the first states the core action and input, the second packs the default range assignment, dice derivation, and validation behavior. Nothing is redundant or extraneous, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 creation tool with five parameters, the description plus a fully covering schema gives an agent the essential behavior needed to call it correctly. It stops short of complete by not stating what the successful response contains, since there is no output schema, and does not mention any permission prerequisite.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to `formula` and `results.range` by explaining derivation and validation, e.g., a six-entry table becomes 1d6 and overlapping ranges are refused. It does not add semantically to `weight` or `folderPath`, but those are already documented in 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 opens with the specific action 'Create' and the specific resource 'a roll table', and narrows the input to 'a list of text results'. This tells an agent exactly what the tool does and distinguishes it from roll-table siblings like draw-roll-table, get-roll-table, and update-roll-table.

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 implies this tool is for creating new roll tables, but it does not state when to prefer it over update-roll-table, delete-roll-table, or other alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative routing is provided.

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