wind

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavior details beyond the schema: direction_deg axis mapping (0=+Y, 90=+X), strength reference levels (1 breeze / 3 normal / 8 gale), and turbulence range (0–3). It does not mention persistence, global vs. selected-object scope, or side effects, but the core 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter semantics. The Korean '바람' slightly duplicates 'wind', and the bilingual phrasing adds a small amount of redundant text, but overall no sentence is wasted and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple three-parameter effect tool with defaults and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and all parameter semantics. The main gap is lack of explicit routing guidance relative to sibling effect tools, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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%, so the description must add all parameter meaning. It does so thoroughly: direction_deg gets an axis coordinate mapping, strength gets concrete wind-level examples, and turbulence gets a numeric range plus the semantic 'shaking'. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment a schema cannot provide.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Wind force that pushes particles, cloth and smoke.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like fire, water, or explode, which have different physical effects.

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 description implies when to use the tool—when wind-like force on particles, cloth, or smoke is needed—but it never explicitly states when not to use it or names any alternative tools. Usage context is inferable but not directly guided.

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