set-primary-party

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the impact of the primary party (sidebar display, XP awards, party overviews) and explicitly covers read, set, and clear behaviors. It does not mention persistence, permissions, or the behavior when both clear and groupIdentifier are supplied, but the core mutating/reading nature is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the mode behavior summarized in short, scannable fragments. Every sentence contributes new, useful information without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage modes and the domain meaning of a primary party. It does not specify what set/clear return or how errors like invalid group identifiers are handled, but these are limited gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already describes both parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the no-argument read mode and mapping each parameter to an action ('point it at that group' vs 'unset instead'), clarifying their roles beyond individual schema descriptions. It leaves the combination case unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 begins with 'Read or change the world's dnd5e PRIMARY PARTY' and defines the resource precisely: the group shown in the players sidebar, targeted by XP awards and party overviews. It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic group-management siblings by focusing on the primary-party concept and its specific read/set/clear operations.

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 explicit mode-based guidance: no arguments reports the current party, groupIdentifier points it at a group, and clear:true unsets it. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but no direct sibling exists among the listed tools, so the mode instructions are the primary usage context.

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