Set Active Badge

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'always callable' and that it gates tool access server-side for the session, revealing its mechanism and scope. It doesn't discuss side effects or reversibility, but for a simple session badge switch this is sufficient context.

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: the core action and enum are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise use/do-not-use guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter enum tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, the value set, when to use it, when not to use it, and a key behavioral caveat ('always callable'). 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%, and the schema already documents the single parameter with the same enum values and prose. The tool description merely repeats the enum list ('player, game_master, observer, or none (Editor)') without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('active badge'), enumerates all four possible values, and adds the functional outcome ('gating tool access server-side for the session'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like respond or set_active_entity.

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 use cases ('entering the story, spectating, or stepping away to edit') and explicitly names a when-not-to-use scenario with the correct alternative ('answering a pending workflow decision — use respond'). This gives an agent unambiguous routing guidance.

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