npc_input_int

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says input is submitted but does not state whether the dialog must already be open, whether the value triggers an action, what happens to the dialog after submission, or any side effects or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though its brevity is a reflection of under-specification rather than efficient packing of necessary 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete for proper invocation. It omits what the integer value should represent, when the tool applies, and what behavior results, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'value'. The description only says 'integer input', which merely repeats the schema's type and adds no meaning about what the integer represents or how it is interpreted by the NPC dialog.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('integer input to an NPC dialog'), which clearly distinguishes it from the string variant sibling npc_input_str. It does not explicitly name the sibling or detail the dialog context, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (such as having an NPC dialog open), and no conditions or exclusions. The description only restates what the tool does.

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