Combat

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'manage' and gives usage conditions. It does not state whether combat state is persisted, what 'advance' changes, whether 'end' is destructive, or what side effects participants changes have.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states purpose, the second provides actionable selection guidance. The front-loaded structure makes the tool's role immediately clear.

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 general usage and parameter schemas are complete, but the multiple action enums—especially 'status'—are not explained, and the tool has no output schema or annotations to compensate. An agent can call it reasonably but may not understand action-specific behavior or results.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mapping actions to high-level use cases, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Manage combat encounters in the active Novel') and goes beyond the title by listing concrete use cases (starting, advancing, ending, changing participants). It also differentiates from sibling 'condition' by explicitly routing status-effect application elsewhere, though it leaves the schema's 'status' action undefined, which creates mild ambiguity.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' list and a 'Do NOT use when' rule with a named alternative tool (condition). However, it omits guidance for the schema's 'status' action, so an agent does not know when to invoke that action vs. the condition tool.

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