foundry_add_to_encounter

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already alerts to mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Add'. It does not disclose side effects such as whether tokens are duplicated, how rollInitiative behaves, or what happens if the encounter does not exist. With no extra behavioral information, transparency is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and readable.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation. The description does not cover important context such as return values, error conditions, or how the encounter is identified. Given the tool's complexity, the description is too thin to be considered complete.

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 coverage is only 33% (only userId and clientId have descriptions). The description adds meaning for 'selected' and 'named' (mapping to the selected boolean and uuids array), but it does not explain the 'encounter' or 'rollInitiative' parameters. It partially compensates but leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource ('selected or named tokens') and target ('an encounter'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_from_encounter. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage: when you need to add tokens to an encounter. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is adequate but lacks explicit directional cues.

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