add_class_learning

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It honestly reveals key behaviors: validation of skillId existence, sorting by level, and a warning (never blocking) when the skill's stypeId lacks a required trait. It even explains the consequence of ignoring the warning (skill-type command never appears, actors cannot use the skill). This is exceptional transparency.

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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and behavioral details efficiently packed into the second. The parenthetical about the trait is a bit dense but earns its place. No wasted words, though the long second sentence could be slightly split for readability.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers core behaviors: what it does, validation, sorting, and the important warning. It does not explicitly describe return values or exact error behavior on failed validation, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in most situations.

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 does add some context for 'level' (sorted by level) and confirms the skillId existence requirement already in the schema, but it does not need to compensate for missing parameter info. It adds marginal value beyond the structured 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Add a "learn skill at level" entry to a class'. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and distinguishes itself from an alternative hack (attaching skills to actors via an Add-Skill trait), making its purpose unambiguous among many sibling tools.

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 provides clear usage context: it is the proper way to add skill learnings to a class, replacing a common hack. It also implicitly warns when not to use it or what prerequisite is needed (the Add Skill Type trait) for the skill to be usable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, 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.