Condition Management

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context: mutating actions persist to the Novel and are audited, read-only actions do not mutate state, and the undo path is manage_history. It stops short of stating what removal actually destroys or whether undo is time-limited, so a 4 rather than 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each carrying distinct information (action scope, persistence/audit behavior, undo route, routing exclusions). The use/when-not framing is front-loaded 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover routing and behavioral quirks — which it does, including the audit/persistence trait and the undo alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already documents action, condition, entity_id, and rounds. The description maps actions to use cases (apply/remove/list) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (manage) plus resource (mechanical/narrative conditions on entities) and explicitly contrasts itself with manage_combat for damage/combat state. An agent can distinguish this from its many siblings 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('applying, removing, or listing conditions') and when-not ('recording damage or combat state — use manage_combat'), naming the alternative tool and action. It also routes undo to manage_history. This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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