Change a roll table

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

Beyond the broad destructiveHint annotation, it discloses atomic validation (whole result checked before anything is written), specific validation rules (overlapping ranges refused, gaps warnings), and the permission needed for removal. This is substantial behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences convey scope, validation, and prerequisites without excess. The long list in the first sentence is dense but not redundant; it earns its place. Some could be structured more cleanly, but overall it's efficient.

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 9-parameter mutable operation with no output schema, the description covers essential operational details: what changes are possible, atomic validation, permission requirements, and where ids come from. It doesn't mention return values, but that's not required when no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor extra meaning (e.g., explaining replacement semantics and that addResults range follows highest one), but these are already present in the schema. It relies appropriately on 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?

States a specific verb 'Change' and resource 'roll table', and enumerates exactly which settings and entry operations are supported. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-roll-table, create-roll-table, and reset-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?

Provides a prerequisite by stating that entry ids come from get-roll-table, and notes a permission requirement for removals. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the context of modifying an existing table is clear.

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