set_party

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a validation behavior ('must reference an existing actor') but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwrites current starting party), error handling for invalid ids, or the presence of the dryRun parameter that changes behavior. This is minimal disclosure 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no unnecessary wording. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple setter with two parameters, the description covers the core action and a key constraint. However, it omits return behavior (no output schema) and does not mention the optional dryRun parameter, which affects whether the tool writes to disk. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema: every id must reference an existing actor. This is not present in the schema's partyMembers description, so it adds value.

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 ('Set'), the resource ('starting party'), and elaborates with 'actor ids the game begins with, in order.' It distinguishes from related tools like get_party and build_change_party_member by specifying this is the initial party, not a runtime change.

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 gives an implicit usage context (game start) and a constraint (ids must reference existing actors), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_party or build_change_party_member. The constraint provides some guidance, but there are no when-not-to-use notes.

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