stat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation ('Increase') but not whether the change is permanent, whether it consumes stat points, whether it costs zeny, or what the result looks like.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the value domain appended. Nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It covers the target domain but omits the cost/effect semantics (how much the stat increases, what resource is spent) that an agent would need to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter has no enum, so the description's enumeration of the six valid stat names (str, agi, vit, int, dex, luk) supplies information the schema lacks entirely. It does not clarify casing or abbreviation rules, but the allowed domain is covered.

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 ('Increase') and resource ('stat'), and enumerates the six valid stat targets. No sibling tool deals with character stats, so no differentiation is required, but it stops short of stating the effect magnitude or cost.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Increase'; nothing tells the agent about prerequisites such as available stat points or level requirements.

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