create_armor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals that the armor is appended to a file and that defaults match the RMXP editor, giving useful side-effect and defaulting context. However, it omits return values, error handling, and whether creation is idempotent.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no redundant content. Every sentence adds value: creation, file append, kind mapping, and default behavior.

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?

Despite a complex 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description stays minimal. It does not explain return values, valid ranges, or field meanings beyond kind, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation in edge cases.

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 schema has only 13% description coverage, and the description only explains the 'kind' parameter and the overall default/override strategy. The many numeric parameters (pdef, mdef, eva, plus modifiers) are left undefined, so the description does not compensate for the schema's sparse coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('armor'), and adds the side effect 'appended to Armors.rxdata', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_weapon and read tools like get_armors.

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 clearly identifies when to use this tool (to create a new armor) and offers no misleading alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and sibling set.

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