editor_open_map

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: prerequisite game states (main world, Miliastra lobby, save list, editor), a blocking side effect ('takes over mouse and keyboard for about 80 seconds'), and an async job contract (runId + poll playtest_status, officialSave is the result). It doesn't clarify what the destructiveHint actually endangers — e.g. whether an existing save is ever overwritten — though 'as a new save' implicitly suggests it does not.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then prerequisite, then cost, then return contract. Dense and purposeful; the parenthetical list of game states is slightly clunky but earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return value (runId), the polling follow-up (playtest_status), and how to extract the useful artifact (officialSave). Combined with the prerequisite and blocking-duration notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and drive it correctly.

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 0%, so the single parameter mapPath is undocumented in the schema; the description only implies it is a path to a .gil file. It adds no detail on path form (absolute/relative), expected location, or failure behavior for an invalid path, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Import a .gil as a new save') plus the crucial scope qualifier 'leave it open in the editor, without playing it', which separates it from playtest_start. An agent can distinguish it from the many scene_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes ordering against a named sibling: 'Do this before scene_import_assets when the scene should go into a particular map.' That is both a when-to-use and an implicit when-not (assets importing into the default map need not call this).

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