Link 5etools tags

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the lookup order across actorPacks/itemPacks, the case-insensitive matching, the fallback to official 2024 book IDs for creatures, and the reporting of unresolved tags. It also warns to use dryRun first, which alerts the user to the mutating nature of the default run. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description builds on that context rather than contradicting it. The main gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that pages are rewritten in place, but 'Turn into Foundry links' combined with destructiveHint covers that.

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 three sentences, tightly packed with necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose, then supplies lookup behavior, and ends with the dryRun instruction. Every sentence contributes information; it is not padded. It could arguably split the 2024 fallback explanation for readability, but it remains appropriately concise for the complexity involved.

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?

The description provides a complete picture for an agent to use the tool correctly: what tags look like, where they are resolved from, how matching works, what happens to unresolved tags, and the recommended dryRun workflow. There is no output schema, but the description covers the key result (unresolved tag list). The only missing piece is whether the tool also handles partial matches or other tag variants, but that is a minor detail for a 5-parameter tool with no nested objects.

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% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the search order and that first match wins in the arrays, the case-insensitivity, and the 2024 ID fallback for creatures. It also reinforces the purpose of dryRun. This adds real semantic value, especially for actorPacks/itemPacks ordering.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it turns leftover 5etools tags into Foundry compendium links on journal pages. It names the exact tag formats @creature and @item, plus the optional label part, which clearly distinguishes it from the many journal-related sibling tools such as journal-rewrite-images or world-rewrite-paths. Nothing is ambiguous about the tool's core function.

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 the appropriate use case: when journal pages contain unlinked 5etools tags. It gives explicit operational guidance by instructing to 'Use dryRun first', which is a strong practical directive. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the tool's niche is so specific that no close sibling exists among the listed tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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