create_weapon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the weapon is 'appended to Weapons.rxdata', indicating a non-destructive write operation. It also discloses behavior for unspecified fields via the defaults statement. It does not cover return values or validation rules, but the key behavioral traits are addressed.

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 focused sentences, each adding unique value: purpose and storage, default behavior, and equipment slot. No redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the primary action and reads efficiently.

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?

While the description covers the core action and defaults, it leaves out crucial operational details: no return value is mentioned, and there is no output schema. It also does not specify whether names must be unique or what happens if the name already exists. Given the tool has 16 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to predict the tool's behavior in all 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?

Schema description coverage is only 19%, so the description must compensate. It does so by stating that all fields beyond the required name can be omitted and will receive RMXP editor defaults ('Defaults match the RMXP editor; override any field'). This gives a global understanding of parameter optionality and behavior, which is more valuable than individual descriptions for a well-known domain.

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 tool's action ('Create a new weapon') and resource ('Weapons.rxdata'), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_armor by specifying the 'weapon slot'. It goes beyond a simple verb+object by noting file append behavior and default alignment with the RMXP editor.

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 when to use the tool: when a new weapon is needed. It provides guidance on how to use it ('Defaults match the RMXP editor; override any field'), making it clear that only the name is required and other fields have sensible defaults. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_armor or mention when not to use it.

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