Character

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

The description lists actions like 'remove' and 'roster_remove' which imply destructive changes, but it does not explicitly state that these actions are permanent or irreversible. Since readOnlyHint=false already signals mutability, the description adds some context but could be more explicit about side effects like deletion or state changes.

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 a compact list of actions followed by clear use/when-not-to-use sections. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping actions. The structure with 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' aids readability.

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 gives an overview of actions and the target audience (player characters), but lacks details on what each action actually does (e.g., what 'stage' means, what 'signal' sends). It does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or expected outputs. Given the tool's complexity (25 parameters, many actions), this is a moderate gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, many descriptions are terse (e.g., 'details: Grouped mechanical details (create)', 'value: Feedback text (signal)') and only restate parameter names plus the action they relate to. They do not explain formats, allowed values, or relationships, though they do provide some minimal context like which action uses each parameter.

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 as managing player characters, enumerating specific actions like create, stage, import, sheet, set_active, personality, voice, signal, remove, and roster_list. It also provides explicit use-case guidance ('Use when: working with player characters'), making it immediately clear what the tool is for.

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 explicit usage boundaries with 'Use when: working with player characters' and 'Do NOT use when: managing NPCs — use npc,' which directly points to an alternative tool. This gives clear guidance on when to select this tool over others.

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