author-npc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly implies creation of a new actor, lists required and optional parameters, and suggests follow-up actions (add-feature, import-item). It doesn't explicitly state side effects or authorization needs, but the creation context is clear and non-destructive.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines, then lists required and optional params. It is somewhat lengthy due to comprehensive parameter coverage, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 35 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description addresses the core purpose, usage context, all required params, and many optional ones. It also provides post-creation guidance (add-feature, import-item). Missing return value description, but the creation context makes that less critical.

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 0%, but the description extensively explains each parameter's meaning and usage. It provides examples (e.g., cr as number or fraction), clarifies default behaviors (e.g., disposition default 'hostile'), and links parameters to game concepts (e.g., 'friendly for allies/townsfolk'). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 authors a custom NPC from a stat block, specifies it's a last-resort path, and distinguishes from compendium-based creation. The verb 'author' and resource 'custom NPC' are precise, and the 'LAST-RESORT' label immediately clarifies its role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('used ONLY when nothing in the premium MM/PHB/DMG books is a workable base'), when not to use (prefer create-actor-from-compendium), and provides explicit guidance to ask the user before authoring. Also recommends 2024 ruleset and lists required fields.

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