create_troop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose defaults, write location, validation refusal, and the force override. It does not mention the dryRun or verbose return behaviors, though those are covered in the schema descriptions. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences of dense, front-loaded information with no filler. Every clause contributes meaning: creation target, defaults, validation constraint, and override behavior. This is an exemplar of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema descriptions paint a complete picture. The description covers creation behavior, defaults, validation failure handling, and an override path. The schema even explains return summary via the `verbose` parameter. No significant gaps remain.

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 has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that `name` is required, stating default values for `members` and `pages`, and specifying the referential integrity constraint for `member.enemyId`. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new troop (enemy battle group) in data/Troops.json'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_enemy by explicitly identifying troops as enemy battle groups, and from update_troop by focusing on creation.

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 provides useful usage context: it notes that `name` is required, that `members` must reference existing enemies, and that a structurally invalid battle-event page will refuse the write unless `force: true` is passed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over related tools like create_enemy or create_battalion, 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.