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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: server-side image verification and version pinning, the preserve-vs-remove semantics of an empty previewImageUrl, and the guarantee that this does not publish or start generation. It stops short of describing rate limits, permission requirements, or conflict behavior for a failed expectedVersionId.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key sequencing instruction, and most sentences carry distinct, actionable information (versioning, genesis package layout, asset references, no-publish guarantee). It is dense and packed with secondary detail (Worldstreams listing, avatar connections, touch/mobile guidance) that could be trimmed, but nothing is outright filler.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the behavioral and workflow context an agent needs, including return values ('Return the saved world and preview link'). Gaps remain for the three undocumented parameters and for failure modes around version conflicts, but the coverage is strong overall.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it explains project as the genesis.json manifest, settings scope, definition for legacy clients, expectedVersionId sourcing, interfaceAssets as {id,mediaId} pairs referenced via asset://ID, and the omit/empty-string semantics of previewImageUrl. However workspaceId, interfaceFiles, and interfaceEntryPoint receive no mention, leaving three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a versioned draft world, settings and optional custom interface together') and immediately scopes it against siblings by clarifying it is a draft save, not a publish: 'This does not publish or start generation.' An agent can distinguish this from validate_world_experience, get_world_experience, and save_world_code_workspace without opening 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?

Gives explicit preconditions and sequencing: read get_world_experience first and pass its versionId as expectedVersionId, read get_genesis_sdk before authoring, and omit liveWorldId only for a new world. It does not explicitly route to validate_world_experience or state when-not to save, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives rubric.

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