Token Place Creature

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two-step workflow (read creature template, then place token), but it omits side effects, required preconditions, failure behavior, and return details. For a mutation-like tool, this is insufficient.

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 one-line description is terse and front-loaded, using an arrow to compactly show the process. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it earns only a mid score for conciseness.

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 tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this description leaves too much for the agent to infer. The output schema exists, but the description still lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral detail needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters directly. Parameter names like creature_id, map_id, x, and y are suggestive, and '以模板名/图' hints at creature_id's role, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the action ('调怪上图' – summon creature onto map) and the resource (monster library template), and it explains that a token is placed using the template name/image. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic token tools, though it does not name sibling alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as token_add or token_move. The only implied context is template-based creature placement, which is not enough to route an agent clearly.

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