create-pc

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it runs real advancement, does not persist on failure (success:false with errors), returns detailed output fields, and explains the dry-run behavior. It also clarifies that ASI ability-increases are expected final and feats are not added by this tool, ensuring no surprises.

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 long but well-structured, with front-loaded main purpose and progressive details. Every sentence adds value, covering all key aspects. Minor verbosity is justified by the tool's complexity, but it could be slightly more terse without losing clarity.

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 complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, multiclass, dry-run, error handling) and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the return value structure, the multi-step workflow, edge cases like missing class or failed advancements, and provides enough detail for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the purpose and usage of most parameters: name, className, level, abilities (final scores), choices (with structure), multiclass, spells, hpMode, sourceRules, acceptDefaults. It adds critical context like 'abilities must be final' and 'choices map format', compensating fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 builds a player character headlessly using premium compendium content, with real dnd5e advancement and native scale feature resolution. It distinguishes itself from NPCs and sibling tools like 'create-pc-from-prefab' and 'level-up-pc' by detailing its specific functionality, such as dry-run mode and multiclass support.

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 provides extensive usage guidance: it explains the two-step process (dry-run then fill choices), what inputs to provide (final abilities, choices map, multiclass array), and what not to include (gear, ASI-feats). It also specifies constraints like premium books only and error handling. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools or say when to choose this over alternatives.

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