create_armor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: omitted fields get defaults (Shield equip slot, no stat bonuses), param format, and that it allocates and returns the next unused armor id. These go beyond the schema but do not mention potential side effects like dryRun behavior or error conditions.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the main action and file target. No redundant wording; every sentence provides essential information (purpose, defaults, param semantics, id allocation).

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?

Despite 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context for correct use: it explains defaults, key parameter semantics, and the return value (next unused id). The schema covers the remaining parameter details, making this complete for a creation 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying defaults for omitted fields and reinforcing the meaning of `params` and `etypeId` with the exact stat order and equip slot mapping. It goes beyond just restating the 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 tool creates a new armor in data/Armors.json, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_armor and create_weapon by specifying the armor data file and the creation context.

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?

Provides clear usage context: only `name` is required and omitted fields use editor defaults. This implicitly guides when to use the tool (creating a new armor) but does not explicitly contrast with update_armor or other alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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