Command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful traits such as 'without mutating state' for resolve and 'intent mapped to tool calls' for suggest, but it does not disclose whether execute mutates state, what errors or outcomes occur, or what the tool returns.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the mode semantics, the second gives conditional usage, and the third provides an exclusion with alternatives. 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 when to use each mode but leaves gaps for a polymorphic tool with no output schema and no annotations: it does not state that execute requires a command, that resolve/suggest require intent, or what the tool returns. These are material omissions for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-to-parameter relationships: command is tied to execute, intent to resolve/suggest, and entity_id to suggest. This helps agents know which parameters are relevant per action beyond what the schema states.

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 names three specific operations (execute, resolve, suggest) and ties each to a concrete resource or outcome: parser command, spatial intent outcome, and intent-to-tool-call mapping. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from world/lore inspection with a do-not-use note, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 explicit conditions for each mode: physical player/narrator action for execute, non-mutating movement outcome for resolve, and intent-to-tool-call mapping for suggest. It also states when NOT to use the tool and names the alternatives (world or lore), which is strong routing guidance.

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