attack_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this overrides server auto-detected behavior, which is real context, but says nothing about persistence (per-session vs permanent), whether it can be reverted, or whether it affects only the next attack. For a state-changing configuration tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by value semantics. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter tool this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say whether the override persists and how it interacts with server auto-detection (e.g., reset behavior). Adequate but visibly incomplete.

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 0% (bare integer with default 1), so the description must compensate — and it does, mapping 1 to melee and 2 to scythe/polearm, meaning far beyond the schema. It falls short of 5 because it never says what other values do or what happens if the field is omitted despite the default.

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 and resource ('Override weapon attack range') and adds the auto-detection context, so the agent knows this is a configuration override rather than an attack action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `attack` tool, which a 5 would require.

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 phrase 'normally auto-detected from server' implies this should only be used when auto-detection is wrong, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g., leave unset to keep server detection).

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