use_ability

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses side effects: spending resources, entering/dropping stances, recording standing declarations, and immediately consuming a prepared dose with target semantics. It also explains the effect of omitting target_id, which is meaningful behavioral detail 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, source of legal values, mode semantics, and choice/target semantics are each clearly separated. The structure front-loads the core action and uses examples to clarify edge cases without wasted prose.

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 tool's multi-mode complexity, lack of annotations, zero enum information, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameter semantics, legal-value discovery, mode behavior, passive-effect exclusion, and target resolution in enough detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all five parameters. It explains ability_id (from the character sheet), mode (the three values and their meanings), choice (for intent vs dose abilities), and target_id (receiver vs caller). character_id is sufficiently implied as the character whose ability is being used.

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 opening line uses specific verbs ('Activate, deactivate, or spend') with a clear resource ('a character's activatable ability'), and the rest of the description distinguishes this tool from passive effects, which require no call. It is unambiguous and separates the tool from sibling tools like ability_apply_ruling.

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 gives explicit mode-by-mode usage instructions: 'use' for bounded resources, 'activate'/'deactivate' for toggle stances, and explicit non-usage guidance for passive effects ('need no call'). It also tells the agent where to find legal ability_id values, making the invocation path clear.

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