bg3_level_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this grants XP rather than setting levels directly, that the user then levels up in the UI so features/spells are class-sourced, and the intended follow-up. It omits permissions, save-state impact, and failure behavior, keeping it 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the important nuance and follow-up step. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 2-param tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, mechanism, and follow-up well, though it leaves the layers parameter's semantics and edge cases thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to `levels` (number of levels to gain) and implies `layers` is the source of XPData, but never explains layers=null behavior or the defaults, leaving real gaps for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 and resource: grant the host exactly enough XP to reach `levels` more levels. It also clarifies the mechanism (XP grant sourced from layers' XPData) and names the follow-up sibling bg3_level_check, which differentiates its role from a check tool. Clear, though not a full contrast against alternatives.

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 sequencing guidance ('follow with bg3_level_check') and implies usage when you want to grant levels, but gives no when-not conditions or explicit comparison against sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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