npc_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain useful mechanics, such as level setting hit points and damage and armour adding hit points rather than reducing damage, but it does not disclose persistence, side effects, required permissions, or what happens after creation.

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 tight and front-loaded, with three short sentences earning their place: purpose, level behavior, and parameter advice. There is no fluff or repeated information from the schema.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers core creation rules but still leaves gaps. It does not clarify the role of location_id, present_in_scene, or the expected result of the creation, so the tool definition is not fully self-sufficient.

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 for the input schema. It meaningfully clarifies level, armour, motive, and named-action constraints, which helps the agent. However, name, location_id, and present_in_scene are left without semantic explanation even though they are important creation 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create one quick NPC from the level table.' It conveys a specific, simplified creation task, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like character_create, relying on the 'NPC' naming to make that separation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The word 'quick' implies a lightweight creation path, but no exclusions or comparisons to character_create or other character/NPC tools are provided, so the agent must infer the appropriate usage context.

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