Bling-bag

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that existing files are backed up to '<path>.bak' for recovery, which is a critical detail not covered by annotations like destructiveHint. It also clarifies the return value behavior ('Returns the backup path or null'), enhancing transparency about outcomes. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 core purpose in the first sentence, followed by backup behavior and return details. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (file writing with backup), rich annotations (e.g., destructiveHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, backup mechanism, and return value, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing to explain return values separately.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as per rules. The description compensates by explaining the implicit parameter context ('configured bling.json path'), adding meaning about where the file is saved without needing explicit input 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 specific action ('Persist the most-recent WOW roll by writing it to the configured bling.json path'), identifies the resource (WOW roll data), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_identity or roll_identity which don't involve file persistence. It uses precise verbs like 'write' and 'copied' to convey the operation.

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 context by specifying 'most-recent WOW roll' and 'configured bling.json path', suggesting it should be used after a roll operation to save results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, such as whether it's only for WOW rolls versus other data types.

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