Create progression marker (admin)

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by highlighting mutation of live game config. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the warning about mutation is valuable. It does not detail auth needs or specific side effects, but the warning is sufficient.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with the purpose and a key warning. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a crucial behavioral warning. However, it does not explain return values or handle the 'fields' parameter vagueness. Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), more completeness could be beneficial, but it is minimally adequate.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The fields parameter points to an external schema, but no further clarification is given.

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 creates a progression marker, exemplified as a named counter like XP or trophies. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling create tools such as specter_create_currency or specter_create_mission.

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 warns that the tool mutates live game config and advises confirming with the user and preferring staging. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not conditions.

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