add_troop_page

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that an invalid page refuses the write with nothing saved, that force:true overrides, and that two specific problems are warnings that never block. It also reveals the ordering behavior (first page whose conditions hold runs) and the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core append action and scoped tightly to what an agent must know. It is dense — the second sentence packs ordering, validation, warnings and return shape into one clause chain — but every clause carries information, with little waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return shape ({ troop, pageIndex, warnings? }) and by documenting the write/refuse/override paths. For a 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested page object, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: position is semantically an insertion index that affects which page runs first, force bypasses structural refusal, and page is expected to come from build_troop_page. It does not explain dryRun or verbose beyond what the schema already says.

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 precise verb+resource ('Append one battle-event page ... to an existing troop') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that produces the page ('e.g. the `page` from build_troop_page'). An agent can tell it apart from build_troop_page and insert_event_commands without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative tools and the condition selecting each: build_troop_page to construct the page, add_troop_page to append it, insert_event_commands with target 'troop_page' to fill it further. It also explains the append-vs-position choice and why order matters when triggers overlap.

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