d2r_chargen_build

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: enforces CLAUDE.md rules, backs up live save, builds to temp, runs scanner, promotes only on success. It warns about the 'force' parameter discarding server progress and states that live save is untouched on failure.

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 concise: four sentences plus parameter bullets. It front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value—no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior (deployment process, safety, parameters) well. It lacks explicit mention of the return value, but the outcome (successful promotion or not) is implied.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'name' requires an existing file, 'phase' defaults to full deploy (4), 'force' skips freshness gate with a warning. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build and deploy a character to the live saves directory.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., import, list, validate) by focusing on deployment.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (e.g., deploying a character to live saves) and explains the safety process (backup, temp build, scanner). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools.

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