Condition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is implied. The description adds the context of 'mechanical or narrative conditions' but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether removal clears all instances or just one). Still, it sufficiently conveys the tool's mutating nature without contradiction.

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 efficiently convey purpose and usage boundaries. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the core action. Slight redundancy in the 'Use when' list could be trimmed, but overall it is concise and scannable.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, flat parameters), the description covers the essential context: what it does and when to use it. It lacks only a mention of return values or error handling, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with brief descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond these, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional semantic depth (e.g., what 'rounds' means in context or how 'entity_id' references entities).

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?

Clearly states the tool manages conditions, lists specific actions (apply, remove, list), and distinguishes from the combat tool. The verb 'manage' is specific to this resource, and the contrast with combat prevents confusion.

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?

Explicitly provides both positive usage ('when applying, removing, or listing conditions') and negative usage ('Do NOT use when recording damage or combat state'), naming the alternative tool (combat). No ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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