Generate enemy scaling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dry-run-by-default safety behavior, that it shows before/after per enemy, and that dryRun=false actually writes. Missing limits (max 10 curves / 200 enemies) and error behavior, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by ordering rules, targetable params, and the write behavior. Four sentences with no filler, each carrying distinct needed information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety default, output preview, and interpolation semantics. It omits collection limits and handling of unspecified params, so it is not fully complete but is solidly sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates by explaining that enemyIds must be weakest-to-strongest, that the first enemy gets each curve's start and the last its end, that middle ones are interpolated, and that curves target stats plus exp/gold. This adds meaning beyond the schema's per-field 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?

States a specific verb+resource: spreading enemy stats along a curve for difficulty progression. Very clear what it does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling generate_param_curve, which appears to be the closest alternative, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Provides operational guidance (order enemies weakest-to-strongest, dry run by default) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus the analogous generate_param_curve sibling, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated with clear boundaries.

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