Ironsworn

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

The description uses verbs like 'setting', 'burning', 'rolling', 'marking', and 'testing' which imply state changes, but it does not explicitly describe side effects, output formats, or failure modes. Since readOnlyHint is false, the agent might expect modifications, but the description misses the opportunity to clarify what the tool returns or how it affects game state. It is adequate but not detailed beyond the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: one core statement, a 'Use when' list, and a clear negative condition. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it avoids fluff or repetition. It is highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main scenarios but leaves out details like how challenge dice interact with parameters, what the expected outcomes are, or how progress tracks behave. However, the schema's parameter descriptions and the explicit use-case list provide enough context for basic usage. It is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema fully describes each parameter with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description only echoes the schema mentions (setting momentum, move rolls, progress tracks) without adding deeper meanings, relationships between parameters, or examples. It does not improve on the schema's already-present semantic 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: resolving Ironsworn-style actions including momentum, move rolls, and progress tracks. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'vow' tool by explicitly saying not to use it for managing vows, which makes its scope unambiguous.

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 for setting/burning momentum, rolling moves, and marking/testing progress, and a 'Do NOT use when' condition with a direct pointer to the 'vow' tool. This gives the agent clear actionable guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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