Add D&D 5e features from compendiums

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

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond the minimal annotations: whole-name case-insensitive matching, first-compendium-wins resolution, duplicate-entry reporting, skipping features the actor already has, preserving entry links rather than ids, and the summary of added/skipped/not-found/failed names. It also warns that 2024 class features cannot be fetched individually, which is valuable operational context.

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 dense but not padded; the first sentence front-loads purpose and examples, and every subsequent clause adds a relevant behavioral rule. It is slightly long as a single paragraph, and the final routing sentence is compressed, which keeps it from being perfectly structured.

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 tool with no output schema and nontrivial source-resolution logic, the description covers the core usage, defaults, limitations, duplicate handling, and result categories. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect from the actor and the response.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat basic parameter meaning. It adds useful extras such as duplicate-name handling and the 2024 class-feature limitation for compendiumPacks. It adds little for actorIdentifier beyond the schema, so a 4 rather than 5 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: copying class and monster features by English name from item compendiums onto an actor, with concrete examples like 'Pack Tactics', 'Multiattack', and 'Action Surge'. It also scopes the tool to D&D 5e and distinguishes it from dnd5e-add-feature by directing spell and homebrew feature use cases to that sibling.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool, including the D&D 5e scope and the feature-copying use case, and explicitly names dnd5e-add-feature with featureType values for spells and homebrew features as the alternative. It also explains what happens when compendiumPacks is omitted, giving the agent clear selection criteria.

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