Add WFRP4e items

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

The annotations only provide coarse flags (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, etc.); the description adds the real behavioral thread: whole-name, case-insensitive lookup, template handling, type and pack disambiguation, blank-item fallback with before the notFound list, per-type parameter behavior, and duplicate-skips. This goes well beyond what structured metadata already provides.

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 and front-loaded: main purpose, then lookup strategy, then edge-case disambiguation, then fallback behavior, then alternative tool. Every sentence carries a distinct fact; nothing is filler despite the volume.

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 this many edge cases and no output schema, the description covers the important fallbacks (blank items, notFound list, skipped existing skills/careers, ignored parameters) and states that the result is read back. The exact response shape is not spelled out, but the return information is enough for an agent to act correctly.

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?

Even though the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds deeper meaning: 'pack' is a compendium id partial match, 'type' disambiguates and decides blank-item behavior, 'advances/quantity/setCurrent' have field-specific effect and are ignored with a warning elsewhere. This is exactly the extra value schemas cannot convey.

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 list: 'Add skills, talents, traits, trappings, careers, weapons, spells and other items to an existing wfrp4e actor.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by ending with 'Change existing values with wfrp4e-update-actor', making the add-versus-update boundary explicit.

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 scopes the tool to '[WFRP4e only]' and directly recommends wfrp4e-update-actor for the alternative use case of changing existing values. The description of lookup and fallback behavior also makes it clear when this tool is the right choice for adding fresh items to an actor.

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