set-actor-ownership

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the permission levels (OWNER/OBSERVER/LIMITED/NONE) and bulk operation confirmation. It covers key behavioral details like partial matching and the 'party characters' keyword, though it omits side effects or prerequisites.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and permission levels; the second provides illustrative examples. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers usage: permission levels, bulk operations, and confirmation. It could mention error conditions or who can perform the action, but the core functionality is well described.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying valid values for bulk operations ('all friendly NPCs', 'party characters') and noting partial matching for playerIdentifier. This extra context aids correct parameter use.

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 begins with 'Set ownership permissions for actors,' a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-actor-ownership' by focusing on modification. Examples of individual and bulk operations further clarify the tool's unique role.

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 concrete usage scenarios ('Make John the owner of Aragorn', 'Give the party observer access'). It implies context but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., reading ownership via list-actor-ownership).

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