dd2_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important risk: jobs above 10 have crashed the game, force=True is required, and the operation should only target a test character with save guard armed. It does not cover every operational detail such as persistence or permissions, but the destructive risk disclosure is strong.

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 and front-loads the read behavior before the critical set_job warning. The crash timestamp and exception code are detailed but earn their place by making the risk credible; the text could be slightly more structured but is not bloated.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains read behavior, write behavior, dangerous values, force, and target restrictions. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents who (player or pawn1..pawn3), set_job as the vocation change, and force as required for dangerous jobs above 10; this meaningfully explains all three parameters despite the empty schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool reads vocation state for player or pawn1..pawn3, listing current job, JobIndex, exp, and job bits, and explains that set_job changes vocation. It is specific about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, which is reasonable because no sibling appears to cover jobs.

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 explicit usage conditions: set_job is for changing vocation during the update phase, jobs above 10 crashed the game and require force=True, and such changes belong only on a test character with the save guard armed. These are clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and precondition guidelines.

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