create_character_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the traits 'deterministic' and 'auditable', but does not disclose whether the tool writes files, has side effects, requires authentication, or what the return value is. For a tool that 'creates' something, this is an important omission.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key qualifiers (deterministic, auditable, layered character, Godot exports) and every word 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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, this brief purpose statement is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without understanding what asset_id and output_directory represent, what the returned plan looks like, or whether the tool has side effects. The description does not compensate for any of these gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention asset_id or output_directory at all. Even the general purpose ('layered character') only vaguely implies what asset_id might mean, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and required format of both parameters.

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 ('Create') and a precise artifact ('a deterministic, auditable TypeScript plan') for a clear resource ('a layered character and its Godot exports'). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_scene_plan because it specifies the character focus and Godot export deliverable, so an agent can differentiate it without schemas.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_scene_plan, plan_asset_scene, or generate_asset_preset. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between similar plan-generation tools.

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