Ping a point

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint false and other hints false, so description must clarify behavior. It does: states it requires 'Allow Write Operations' and the Gamemaster's browser, and mentions optional pulling views. It does not disclose if the ping disappears after a few seconds or if it can be used without a token, but the essential constraints are covered.

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?

Two sentences, both essential. The first states the action and scope, the second gives the critical prerequisite. No fluff or repetition.

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 7 optional parameters, it is a fairly complex tool, and the description covers the main functionality and constraints. However, it lacks an explanation of the relationship between tokenId and x/y (are they mutually exclusive?) and does not describe the return value or side effects. But output schema absence means description carries more weight, yet the essential aspects are clear.

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 clear description. The description adds overall purpose but does not add extra nuance beyond the schema, such as how to disambiguate tokenId vs x/y coordinates. Baseline 3 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?

Clear verb-action: 'Show a ping at a token or a point to everyone' describes a visually pointing to a location. It distinguishes from siblings like get-canvas-view or pan-camera by specifying the ping effect and optional view pulling.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use: 'to everyone viewing the scene' and notes the prerequisite of write permissions and the drawn canvas. However, does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternative tools for similar actions (e.g., pan-camera), but the context is sufficient.

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