Player Character Management

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it separates mutating actions (which persist to the Novel and are audited) from read-only actions, and points to the undo route. It does not describe failure modes or per-action side effects, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Given 25 parameters and 11 actions, the description is compact and front-loads the action inventory before the behavioral and aliasing notes. Every sentence carries weight (scope, audit/undo, alias precedence, sibling exclusion). Minor density in the alias sentence, but no filler.

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 large multi-action tool with an output schema already present, the description covers what the schema cannot: the read/write split, audit behavior, undo routing, alias precedence, and the sibling boundary. It is close to complete; per-action return shapes are rightly deferred to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the aliasing rules: personality{} aliases description/voice/background/goals and details{} aliases ability_scores/skills/feats/talents/equipment, with a top-level value overriding its grouped alias. That precedence rule is not evident from the schema alone and materially affects how an agent should build the call.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Manage player characters') and then enumerates the full action surface — create, stage, import, sheet, set_active, personality, voice, signal, remove, roster_list. It explicitly differentiates from the closest sibling ('Do NOT use when: managing NPCs — use manage_npc'), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use ('working with player characters'), an explicit when-not ('managing NPCs'), names the alternative sibling, and additionally documents the undo path via manage_history (action: undo). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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