create_troop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: defaults for members/pages, the validation rule that member.enemyId must reference an existing enemy, and the refusal to write on structurally invalid pages with a force override. This transparency is exceptional for a mutation tool.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second packs defaults, validation, and force in a compact, readable form. No wasted words or redundant elaboration.

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?

The description covers creation, defaults, validation behavior, and the force escape hatch. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the detailed schema for parameters, though return format is unspecified. For a create operation with this complexity, it is impressively complete but could mention what the write returns.

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?

The input schema already describes all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that members defaults to empty (not in schema) and that force overrides validation refusal, which enriches parameter understanding. It does not repeat the schema descriptions but complements them.

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 opens with 'Create a new troop (enemy battle group) in data/Troops.json' – a specific verb, resource, and target file. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_troop and search_troops. This unambiguously communicates the tool's function.

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 states the creation context and requirements ('name is required; members defaults to empty'), giving clear guidance on what is needed to create. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as 'use update_troop to modify an existing troop'. The implied usage is clear, but explicit guidance vs alternatives is missing.

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