create_weapon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write target (data/Weapons.json), default behavior for omitted fields, the stat bonus array order, and the id allocation behavior. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention the dryRun preview parameter.

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 compact at four sentences, each serving a purpose: main function, defaults, params format, and return behavior. No redundant text.

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 essential aspects: target file, required field, defaults, param structure, and return value. Given 10 parameters and no output schema, it provides sufficient context, though it omits mention of the dryRun parameter, which is documented in the schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `name` is the only required field, what defaults apply to omitted fields, and explicitly defining the `params` array order and length, exceeding the baseline.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new weapon in data/Weapons.json' with a specific verb and resource. The mention of allocating the next unused id distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_weapon and other creation tools.

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 clarifies that only `name` is required and that omitted fields use editor defaults, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like update_weapon, but the creation context is self-evident.

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