usage_roll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the named resource, steps down the die on 1-2, depletes at d4, and always enters a downgrade into the unratified-outcomes ledger. It also explains stakes semantics. However, it does not explain how advantage/disadvantage affect the roll or what stakes_hidden does, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, clear line breaks separating mechanics, and no fluff. It is appropriately detailed for the complexity without being verbose, though it could be slightly tighter in the stakes explanation.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It explains the core dice mechanics but omits details on several parameters (advantage, disadvantage, reason, owner_id, stakes_hidden) and does not describe the return value or any additional side effects. An agent would need to guess or seek external docs for these.

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 only explains stakes_failure and stakes_success (via the stakes semantics) and implies resource_id via 'named resource'. It leaves advantage, disadvantage, owner_id, reason, and stakes_hidden unexplained. This is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool, making correct invocation difficult without external knowledge.

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 'Roll' and the resource 'Usage Die for a tracked resource', with detailed mechanics (step-down grades, d4 depletion). It differentiates from generic dice tools by specifying the usage-die behavior, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like attribute_test or doom_roll.

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 provides context that this is for tracked resources with usage dice, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, such as attribute_test for standard tests or doom_roll for doom dice. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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