Token Move

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing role-rejection behavior, repeated-write notification side effects, persisted=true/broadcast_confirmed=false semantics, the fact that REST does not emit map.changed, and the recommendation to inspect events_poll before assuming others saw the move. It also documents the success/error envelope. No contradiction 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then flows logically through alternatives, role constraints, behavioral semantics, and error format. It is dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; only the broadcast caveat is stated twice ('REST does not itself emit map.changed' and 'this result is not a correlated broadcast ACK'), a minor redundancy.

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 mutation with four required parameters, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: role/auth prerequisites, determinism of coordinates, notification side effects, verification guidance via events_poll, and the full success/failure return envelope. The existing output schema relieves the description of return-value duty, but the description exceeds even that bar.

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 baseline is 3. All four parameters (x, y, map_id, token_id) already have rich schema descriptions including coordinate ranges and the map/token scoping. The tool description reinforces 'absolute position' but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening sentence, 'Set an existing token's absolute position through REST,' names a specific verb, resource, and scope in one clear statement. It also differentiates itself from token_add (creation) and map_switch (changing active map), so an agent can distinguish it from the most confusable siblings without opening their schemas.

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 explicitly routes to alternatives: 'Use token_add to create a token or map_switch to change the active map.' It also states when the tool cannot be used, noting the bridge rejects SPECTATOR/unknown roles and upstream requires DM or the controlling player. These are concrete, actionable conditions for invocation.

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