create_state_skill

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

No annotations, so description carries burden. It discloses a key failure mode (throws on nonexistent stateId) and the dependency on States.json. However, it doesn't mention whether dryRun skips validation, what the return value is, or how new skills are allocated, leaving gaps in behavioral expectations.

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?

Two concise sentences; first defines the tool's purpose with examples, second conveys critical dependency and error condition. No wasted words, 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 7-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, description is relatively complete. It clearly states purpose, primary failure mode, and prerequisites. It omits return value details and any notes on parameter interactions beyond stateId, but schema covers parameter descriptions. Given CRUD sibling family, this is adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, giving baseline 3. Description adds semantic constraint that stateId must refer to an existing state and throws otherwise, which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding of the stateId parameter beyond its type/range.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create' targeting 'state-inflicting skill' with examples (poison, sleep), distinguishing it from sibling create_skill, create_damage_skill, create_healing_skill, create_buff_skill. It clearly identifies the resource and purpose.

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?

States prerequisite: throws if stateId does not exist in States.json, and explicitly directs to create_state first. This provides when-to-use context and points to an alternative/related tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other skill creation tools, leaving some ambiguity for which skill type to choose.

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