build_change_party_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'Read-only: returns { command }', disclosing that it doesn't mutate state and what the return value is. It also explains the initialize parameter's behavior (reset to initial state) for add operations. This is substantial but doesn't cover potential errors or side effects.

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, all informative, no filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds necessary context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the command type, usage context, and return format. It could be more detailed about the returned command structure, but it's sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds a small clarification about initialize (add only) but largely repeats schema information, so it doesn't significantly go beyond the baseline.

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 tool builds a Change Party Member (129) event command, specifying the verb 'Build' and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the event command ID and its purpose (add/remove actor from party).

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 says the command is 'for insertion via insert_event_commands', giving clear context for where the output goes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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