foundry_end_encounter

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false appropriately flags this as a mutating operation, but the description adds no behavioral context about side effects, such as whether the encounter is deleted, whether combatants are removed, or whether the action is reversible. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity sacrifices useful context.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and minimal parameter descriptions, the description should explain the tool's effects and conditions (e.g., must be in an active encounter). None is provided, leaving significant gaps in an agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 input schema describes userId and clientId, but the encounter parameter lacks a description. The phrase 'End an encounter' only trivially suggests encounter is the target; it does not clarify requiredness, value format, or default behavior. With 67% schema coverage and no compensation from the description, this falls below the baseline.

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 'End an encounter' clearly states the action and object, and the verb 'end' distinguishes it from siblings like start_encounter and next_turn. However, it is extremely minimal and does not elaborate on what ending entails, so it is clear but not fully detailed.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as foundry_start_encounter or foundry_next_turn, nor about prerequisites like needing an active encounter. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'end'.

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