Token Hp Update

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

The annotation set already declares destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description enriches this by explaining the dispatch is not a business ACK ('sent:true,confirmed:false,status:"pending"'), instructing to poll events_poll for results, and detailing failure modes ({ok:false,error}). It also specifies that positive delta heals and negative damages, consistent with annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, alternatives, prerequisites, effect polarity, idempotency warning, async acknowledgment, failure contract. It is dense but not bloated, and key operational warnings are front-loaded after the purpose.

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 mutating async tool, it covers prerequisites, result interpretation, polling, error contracts, and non-idempotency. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required, but the description still adds the crucial 'pending is not an ACK' nuance, making it complete for an agent to act safely.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both character_id and delta, including the signed integer semantics and 'do not pass a map token ID.' The description repeats the heal/damage polarity but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Apply a signed HP delta to a character sheet through WS, not to a token ID.' This unambiguously differentiates it from token-ID-targeted operations and from character_update's absolute patch, and it aligns with the tool name while correcting any misreading of 'token'.

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?

It explicitly directs to alternatives: 'Use character_get to inspect HP or character_update for an absolute sheet patch.' It also states prerequisite authority ('character ownership or DM authority and campaign assignment') and warns not to blindly resend because repeat applies the delta again, providing clear when-to/not-to guidance.

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