Character Create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the server validates data against the campaign system's Zod schema and returns 400 on failure, and explains that data shape is system-dependent with upstream file references. It also reveals the side effect of adding the card to the current campaign, though it does not detail duplicate handling or requirements for a campaign context.

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 definition is four short, purposeful sentences with the core action first. Parenthetical validation details and upstream references are dense but relevant, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 an output schema exists to describe the return value, the description covers the creation effect, gameSystem inheritance, validation behavior, system-specific data structure, and a verification step. The main omissions are explicit semantics for token_image_url and an explicit distinction from character_update, but for a create tool with one required parameter this is near-complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the complex data parameter (dict of card fields, structure depends on gameSystem, references dnd5e.ts/callOfCthulhu7e.ts), but it says nothing about token_image_url, and name is only evident from the schema property key. The most complex parameter is well covered, but not all 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair — '创建角色卡' (create character card) — and adds the key effect '直接加入当前战役' (directly joins the current campaign). It also distinguishes creation from validation by pointing to character_validate, and the verb separates it from sibling character_update. This is unambiguous.

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 establishes the intended context: create a new character card in the current campaign, with gameSystem automatically inherited so the caller need not supply it. It provides post-action guidance ('建完可用 character_validate 复查'), naming character_validate as the verification alternative. It does not explicitly state 'use character_update for existing cards', but the creation context is clear enough.

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