Manage Pathfinder 2e conditions

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it writes through the system's own condition handling, reads the result back, handles source-granted conditions in a specific way, and notes persistent-damage needs its damage. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the system scope and action list, then the key differentiator and limitations. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the action semantics, system-specific behavior, and key limitations well. The main gap is that it does not describe the format or content of the 'list' result or what 'reads the result back' returns, but the schema and annotations carry much of the remaining burden.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema with concrete examples like 'frightened 2 or drained 1', the behavior of decreasing to 0, and the persistent-damage caveat. It does not fully replace the schema's own detailed parameter descriptions, but it supplements them meaningfully.

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 clear action set ('List, set, increase, decrease, remove or toggle') on a specific resource ('a condition on an actor'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from toggle-token-condition. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicitly explains when this tool should be used instead of toggle-token-condition ('cannot set or read back') and notes important exclusions ('A condition granted by another one ... is removed with its source, not here'). It also flags persistent-damage's special requirement, giving an agent clear routing and limitation guidance.

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