build_to_pathbuilder_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that this is a normalize/strip pass (not a full transform), mentions dropping internal-only keys, and specifies the output envelope {success, build}. This provides useful context about what happens during the operation, though it does not cover side effects or permissions (which are likely irrelevant for a local transform).

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful implementation details but includes internal references like 'plan's Pathbuilder-schema findings' and 'Phase 1', which could be confusing without context. Overall it is reasonably concise and well-structured, with minor extra jargon.

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 moderate complexity (one nested param, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It covers the transformation approach, the output envelope, and the parameter's expected shape. It does not describe failure modes or edge cases, but the combination of description and output schema provides sufficient context. The internal references slightly reduce universal completeness.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'character' with no description and 0% schema_description_coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the character is the working representation and already follows Pathbuilder's build shape, which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare 'object' type. However, it does not detail specific required subfields, but given the permissive schema (additionalProperties true), this is reasonable.

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 tool's function: wrapping the working character representation into a Pathbuilder-compatible export. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output format (Pathbuilder) and describing the operation as a normalize/strip pass rather than a full transform, which differentiates it from tools like build_render_character_sheet or build_validate_build.

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 usage when a Pathbuilder-compatible export is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The context about the schema already following Pathbuilder's shape gives some situational background, but there is no direct guidance on selecting this tool over siblings.

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