create_enemy

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the default values (100 HP, one Attack action, no drops), id allocation, return shape '{ enemy, warnings? }', warn-by-default for battlerName, throw conditions for invalid references, and the critical Hit Rate trait pitfall—far exceeding typical 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 concise at five sentences and front-loaded with the core action and file target. Every sentence adds necessary information—defaults, id allocation, return shape, validation, and a critical combat pitfall—with no redundant filler.

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 having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, defaults, id assignment, return value, warning behavior, validation errors, and a common usage mistake. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and reference-checking complexity, this is highly complete.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond schema descriptions: it clarifies that omitted fields use editor defaults, explains validation failure for nested references, and flags the battlerName warning and Hit Rate trait issue. This supplements the schema's per-property descriptions with behavioral guidance.

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 opening sentence 'Create a new enemy in data/Enemies.json' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_enemy and search_enemies by emphasizing creation and file location.

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 explicitly states that only 'name' is required and defines defaults for omitted fields, giving clear entry conditions. It does not explicitly name update_enemy as the alternative for modifying existing enemies, but the 'Create a new enemy' phrasing and id-allocation behavior make the intended use unambiguous.

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