create-pc-from-prefab

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool copies the source (never modifies the original), applies modifications to the copy, resolves @scale natively, and does not set ownership (requires a separate step). It also specifies the return shape. This is a complete and honest description of the tool's behavior.

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 moderately concise at around 150 words, packing essential information without significant fluff. It is well-structured: purpose first, then method, resolution, overrides, behavioral notes, and returns. However, some sentences are long and dense, which slightly reduces readability. Minor improvements could make it more streamlined.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite comprehensive. It covers the core workflow, constraints (premium only), resolution options, and return structure. The main gaps are the lack of explanation for the 'folder' parameter and the exact shape of 'modifications'. Still, it provides enough context for correct usage.

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 adds substantial meaning to several parameters: it explains how 'prefab' resolves (by name or explicit packId+actorId), what 'abilities' expects (array of final scores), and what 'modifications' are (update-actor-shaped updates applied to copy). 'folder' and other basic parameters are not elaborated, but the critical ones are covered. It compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: creating a player character by copying a premium-book pregen template. It uses specific verbs ('Create', 'COPYING', 'layering'), identifies the resource (premium-book PREGEN), and distinguishes this approach from building via advancement. It also contrasts with create-actor-from-compendium for NPCs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: for creating a PC from a pregen template instead of advancement. It provides guidance on source resolution (by prefab name or packId+actorId), specifies that premium books only are allowed (never SRD), and mentions a follow-up step (set-actor-ownership). It also implies when not to use it (if not using a pregen or using SRD). This is comprehensive.

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