foundry_add_effect

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false indicates a write operation, but the description adds no behavioral detail about whether effects are appended or overwritten, required permissions, failure modes, or the role of the required uuid. For a mutation 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?

A single sentence of nine words, immediately conveying the operation with zero waste. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the one-liner is inadequate. It does not explain how to construct effectData, how statusId maps to standard effects, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

The schema already describes userId, clientId, and effectData (60% coverage). The description hints at statusId vs effectData for status vs custom effects, adding some meaning, but uuid and statusId remain undocumented in both description and schema, so it only partially compensates.

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 states the action (add) and the resource (status or custom active effect), distinguishing it from sibling tools like foundry_remove_effect and foundry_get_effects. It is specific but omits the target entity (uuid) context, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description does not clarify when to use statusId vs effectData or how this differs from other effect-related tools.

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