author-npc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a creation action but does not describe side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or success/failure behavior. The lack of behavioral context beyond being a 'last resort' leaves the agent unaware of important operational traits.

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 relatively long but well-structured with a clear hierarchy: purpose, usage guidelines, required params, optional params, follow-up steps. It front-loads critical information. Could be slightly more concise but the length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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?

Covers required and optional parameters thoroughly, provides usage context (last resort, ruleset preference), and mentions post-creation steps. However, it does not describe the tool's return value or immediate outcome (e.g., does it return the created NPC?). Given no output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect after invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively explains required and optional parameters, including examples (e.g., 'cr (number or fraction string like ''1/4'')'), enumeration of allowed values for creatureType and size, and nested object structures like abilities and skills. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 defines the tool as a last-resort path for authoring a custom NPC from a hand-written stat block, distinguishing it from the preferred alternative create-actor-from-compendium. It specifies the verb 'author', the resource 'custom NPC', and the unique context of being used only when compendium options are insufficient.

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 that this tool should only be used when nothing in premium books is a workable base, and advises preferring create-actor-from-compendium. It also instructs to tell the user and ask before authoring, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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