Condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core operations (apply/remove/list) and notes the domain (mechanical or narrative), but does not explain side effects, persistence, return values, or permissions. The action names imply mutation, but transparency about what changes and what list returns is absent.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the resource, listing when to use, and specifying when not to use with an alternative. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple 4-param tool with 100% schema coverage and one required param, the description covers the main use cases and exclusions. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't clarify what 'list' returns or whether entity_id is required for list vs apply/remove, leaving minor ambiguity for an agent.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond mapping the action enum to apply/remove/list, which is already present in the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear resource ('conditions on entities') and a verb ('Manage'), and further narrows scope to applying, removing, or listing conditions. It explicitly contrasts with the combat tool, which helps differentiate it from the most relevant sibling, though 'Manage' is somewhat generic and doesn't distinguish from all other sibling tools.

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 'Use when' conditions (applying, removing, listing conditions) and an explicit 'Do NOT use when' (recording damage/combat state) with a named alternative tool and action (combat action: init/advance). This gives an agent clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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