Token Hp Update

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the ownership/DM authorization requirement, the spectator exclusion, that repetition re-applies the delta, and the critical async distinction that a 'sent:true,confirmed:false,status:pending' dispatch is not a business ACK. That pending-vs-confirmed semantics is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded, and every section carries real operational weight (auth, idempotency, async ACK, error modes). It is somewhat dense and repeats return-shape information ('sent:true,confirmed:false' then '{ok:true,data}') that an output schema already covers, which costs a point but does not obscure the essential guidance.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, async, authorization-gated mutation, the description supplies everything needed: the target entity, the auth requirement, idempotency warning, the pending-vs-confirmed dispatch model, follow-up via events_poll, and the success/failure envelope shapes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail (signed delta semantics, campaign-assigned character ID vs map token ID). The description restates 'positive heals, negative damages' and the token-vs-character distinction without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Apply a signed HP delta to a character sheet') and immediately corrects the misleading name by stating it operates on a character sheet, 'not to a token ID.' It explicitly routes to siblings (character_get for inspection, character_update for an absolute patch), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 names the alternatives and the conditions that select them ('use character_get to inspect HP or character_update for an absolute sheet patch'), and adds an operational rule for the async flow ('Read events_poll for results/system.error ... never blindly resend'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and post-call behavior are all explicit.

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