manage-effect

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that item effects transfer to the owning actor by default, that the edit action replaces the entire changes list, and that it only sets data (non-combat). It does not mention error handling, permissions, or idempotency, but overall provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides an example, targeting logic, a usage hint for action='list', and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste.

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 11 parameters, a nested schema, and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: actions, targeting, changes semantics, and the authoring-only caveat. It lacks an explicit mention of what list returns (effectIds) or error handling, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the changes structure with an example (e.g., system.attributes.ac.bonus) and clarifying targeting rules (actorIdentifier + itemIdentifier vs itemIdentifier alone). It also notes default transfer behavior for items.

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 manages ActiveEffects with four actions (create, edit, delete, list) on actors or items. It gives a concrete example (+1 AC with changes) and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the effect type and targeting options. This is specific and 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 explains when to use each action (e.g., use action='list' to find effectIds) and how to target different entities (actor, embedded item, world item). It also notes the tool is for authoring only, not combat. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like apply-condition or manage-activity, missing a clear when-not-to-use guideline.

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