Set a specific player's health or apply to all active players in a Broforce game. Specify health value and optional player index (default 0) for gameplay manipulation.
Set a player's health
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| health | Yes | Health value | |
| playerNum | No | Player index 0-3, or -1 for all active players (default: 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the core action. It does not explain what happens when health is set to 0, whether values are clamped, whether playerNum=-1 applies to all active players, or whether the change persists or affects gameplay state.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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 lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and a broad sibling list, the description is incomplete. It does not convey the broader player state context, the special all-players behavior of playerNum, or how this fits into the testing/debugging workflow.
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 the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set a player's health.' This is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like teleport_player or set_game_speed, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of intended workflow, and no exclusions or prereqisites. An agent must infer from the tool name that this is for debugging or test setup, which the description does not support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.