set_player_state

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

The description discloses that the tool is guarded, audited, and requires confirmation. It explains the money is in cents and goes through a ledger. These details add value beyond the sparse annotations (only title). No contradictions with annotations.

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 long with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical details about units, ledger, error handling, and confirmation requirement. Every sentence is valuable.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral traits (DarkRP dependency, confirm requirement, money unit). It lacks explicit mention of return values or failure modes beyond 'named error', but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use it safely.

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 50%, and the description adds the crucial clarification that money is in integer cents. However, it does not explain the job parameter or rpname further. The description avoids repeating schema details, but given the moderate coverage, it provides minimal extra guidance.

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 it sets a player's money, job, salary, or RP name. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'GUARDED, DarkRP' and the scope of state mutation, which sets it apart from read-only and debug 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 notes that it fails with a named error when DarkRP is absent, telling when not to use it. It also emphasizes the need for confirm:true. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide conditions for when to use this tool over others.

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