build_change_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only: returns { command }', which is essential behavioral information for an agent. It also discloses that includeEquip counts equipped copies when removing, giving insight into the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence presents the core purpose and insertion mechanism, while the second adds a key edge case and the read-only behavior. This is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 builder tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides complete context: it explains what is built, how it will be used (insert_event_commands), the relevant parameter nuance (includeEquip), and the return shape. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 value by summarizing the overall gain/lose semantics and clarifying the includeEquip parameter's behavior (equipped copies when removing), which goes beyond individual field descriptions. This additional context helps the agent understand how the parameters interconnect.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and identifies the exact event commands ('Change Items (126), Change Weapons (127), or Change Armors (128)'), clearly distinguishing it from other build_* sibling tools. It states the action (gain/lose an item/weapon/armor) and the mechanism (constant or variable amount), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 says this builds a command 'for insertion via insert_event_commands,' which gives clear context on when to use it. It also notes the includeEquip caveat for weapons/armors, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. However, the build_* family is well-defined, and the purpose itself implies the appropriate use case.

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