grant_runic_weapon

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hidden mechanics: personality-to-ability mapping, the 2d6 INT roll, the immediate session test, table announcement, and the one-weapon-at-a-time refusal. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, personality mechanics, immediate roll behavior, follow-up actions, and a constraint. The description is dense but front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the tool definition covers essentially everything an agent needs: valid personality values, mechanical consequences, roll behavior, related tool calls, and a hard limitation. The only minor gap is explicit parameter naming, but it does not impair invocation.

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 does a strong job for personality by listing all allowed values and their effect, and character_id and name are reasonably inferable from context. A fully explicit statement that name is the weapon's name would push this to 5.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Grant a sentient runic weapon a character finds in play (a rare event).' It also differentiates from nearby siblings by pointing to combat_attack and inventory_update for subsequent actions, so the tool's role is unambiguous.

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 states when the tool applies ('a character finds in play') and when it refuses ('A character holds one at a time'). It also gives explicit routing for related operations: attack via combat_attack with runic true, and removal via inventory_update remove_weapons.

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