Create a build guide page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses browser opening, downloadable Build Planner files per phase, conditional behavior when the Path of Building engine is available, and a human-confirmation requirement. It omits where files are written and any permission/file-overwrite implications.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then the artifact list, then parameter guidance. It is dense and long but almost every clause maps to a real output section or schema relationship, so little 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 an 18-param, deeply nested tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what gets produced and how the key nested inputs relate. Gaps remain around the simpler required scalars, but an agent has enough to build a valid call.

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 only 33% with 18 params, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains passivePlan's provenance (plan_passive_tree, id + takeAtLevel), that phases split it by level, that phases.passives is only for respecs, and that gear slots use stat_priorities names. Many top-level required params (name, class, summary, leagueStart) still go unexplained, but the high-risk nested ones are 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 and artifact ('Write a full build guide as a local web page and open it in the player's browser') and enumerates the page's contents, making it unmistakable versus siblings like evaluate_build or plan_passive_tree. An agent can distinguish the generator role immediately.

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?

'Use after planning; ask the player first' gives clear sequencing and a consent gate. It doesn't name which sibling produces its inputs by name (plan_passive_tree is only referenced indirectly via passivePlan), but the context is otherwise explicit.

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