create_state_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral aspect: state IDs come from States.rxdata, with XP defaults enumerated. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return behavior. This adds value beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive disclosure for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical reference. No words are wasted, and the format is scannable. It earns its place with the state ID defaults, making it both concise and dense with useful info.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description focuses primarily on stateId semantics. It leaves gaps around return values, error handling, and when to use this vs. sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters, the description doesn't fully round out the operational context for an agent to invoke this safely and correctly.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches parameter understanding, particularly for stateId, by explaining where it comes from and providing concrete default mappings (3=poison, 8=sleep, etc.). This goes beyond the schema's brief 'State ID to inflict', adding actionable context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a state-inflicting skill'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_skill, create_damage_skill, and create_healing_skill by focusing on state effects (poison, sleep, etc.). The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 implies use for state-inflicting skills but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like create_skill or create_damage_skill. It doesn't say when to prefer this tool over a generic skill creation tool, leaving the agent to infer from the name and examples. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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