Token Hp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose important behavior: sign semantics and a table-wide broadcast of character.hp.updated. This is meaningful beyond the schema. It does not mention failure cases or persistence, but for a simple HP mutation it is reasonably transparent.

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 a single compact sentence with the action first and the crucial semantic details in a parenthetical. No wasted words.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, sign convention, and side effect (table broadcast). It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it omits explicit error cases or whether HP can go below zero.

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 explain parameters. It explicitly defines delta as health change with positive=healing and negative=damage, which is the critical semantic. character_id is left implicit but its meaning is clear from the property name and tool context.

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 states a specific verb ('改' = modify) and resource ('token HP'), and defines the delta direction (positive=healing, negative=damage). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like token_move, token_add, and character_update.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the verb '改'; the description never names sibling tools or conditions.

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