set-actor-art

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

Adds GM-only permission and 'by default' behavior for token art, which adds context beyond the schema. However, lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid path, missing actor) or side effects (e.g., overwriting, reversibility). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but remains minimal.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus 'GM-only'. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and permission. It is somewhat complete but could mention error conditions or output. Still adequate for a straightforward setter.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little new meaning beyond the schema: it rephrases the purpose of setting portrait and token art, which is already captured in parameter 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?

Clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('actor's portrait image, and by default its prototype token art'), with source ('Data-relative image path') and permissions ('GM-only'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update-actor' or 'upload-asset' by being specific to art.

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 implies GM-only usage and a specific task (setting art), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update-actor' for general updates) or provide exclusion criteria.

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