Import a character from a Path of Building code

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

The description discloses a lot of behavior beyond the annotations — the full result set (class, level, skills, items with mods), the evaluate_build-consistent metrics, goalCheck behavior when goals are supplied, and the defenceAudit contents. However, it also says the character 'is saved under a characterId for character_upgrades', i.e. persistent state is written, which sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint=true; an agent relying on the annotation would not expect side effects.

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 dense paragraph but front-loaded with the action and the prerequisite steps, and most clauses (output inventory, defenceAudit contents, characterId, use cases, Windows limitation) carry distinct information. It is longer than necessary in the output enumeration, where a shorter summary would suffice.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of enumerating return values and does so thoroughly, including nested concepts like goalCheck and defenceAudit. It omits failure behavior (malformed code, oversized code, what happens on re-import of the same character) which matters for a single required string input.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real value by explaining how to obtain pobCode (PoB generate/export) and by clarifying that supplying goals changes the output (stricter targets, honest goalCheck, budget-matched gear), which is more than the schema's per-field descriptions say.

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 ('Load the player's real character from a Path of Building (PoE2) code') and makes clear it is an import-and-evaluate step, distinct from siblings like evaluate_build (which shares the same numeric basis) and character_upgrades (which consumes the saved characterId). An agent can tell exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('why am I dying', 'what should I upgrade', plan from real gear), an explicit prerequisite workflow inside PoB (Import/Export Build → Generate, copy, or import the character first), and a platform constraint (Windows only). It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling such as evaluate_build or list_characters instead, which keeps it below a 5.

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