craft_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: real crafting time, missing intermediates are queued automatically, and the queueing behavior. It also hints at the wait_s parameter's effect by mentioning 'real crafting time' and queueing. It doesn't mention cancellation or replace behavior, but the schema already documents replace. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

One sentence with high information density. It front-loads the core action and includes the most important behavioral caveats (real time, queued intermediates) without waste. 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the key behavioral aspects: real crafting time, queueing, and intermediate handling. It doesn't mention prerequisites like having the blueprint or materials, but the queueing of intermediates implies material handling. For a 4-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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 50%: wait_s and replace have descriptions, but count and recipe do not. The description adds context that 'missing intermediates are queued too', which relates to recipe semantics, but doesn't explain what a recipe string looks like or how count interacts with queued intermediates. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 ('Hand-craft') and resource ('your character's crafting queue'), and distinguishes it from other crafting-related tools like set_recipe and build_blueprint by emphasizing the character's personal queue and real crafting time. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate it from factory/entity crafting.

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 implies when to use it: when you want the character to craft items personally, with real time and queued intermediates. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like set_recipe for entity crafting, but the context is reasonably clear. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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