Parser Command

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

Annotations only say the tool is destructive/non-read-only, which is true for execute but misleading for resolve and suggest. The description corrects that by stating execute mutates world/entity state while resolve and suggest are read-only, and adds the key behavioral fact that execute persists to the Novel and is undoable via manage_history (action: undo). That is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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 routing clauses are front-loaded and well ordered, but the second sentence is largely redundant: 'resolve and suggest are read-only' is stated twice in adjacent clauses. That repetition costs a point on an otherwise compact definition.

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 tri-mode tool with four params and an output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant facts: what each mode does, which mutate, reversibility and the undo path, and which sibling to use instead for direct inspection. Return values are correctly left 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by tying each action to its parameter (execute consumes a command, resolve/suggest consume intent, entity_id is suggest-scoped). It stops short of documenting formats or the execute default, which the schema already covers.

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 names a specific verb (execute/resolve/suggest) and the resources involved (parser command, spatial intent, world/entity state), and explicitly routes away from manage_world/manage_lore. The only friction is the multi-mode nature and the jargon 'parser command', which forces the reader to reconcile the tool name run_command with three distinct behaviors.

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 'Use when' clause for each of the three modes (physical action → execute, movement outcome without mutation → resolve, intent mapped to tool calls → suggest) and an explicit 'Do NOT use when' clause naming manage_world and manage_lore as alternatives. This is about as complete as routing guidance gets.

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