scene_add_currency

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it writes a new .gil in the workspace, leaves the official save untouched, places the backpack on the character template for every character, creates a ten-slot backpack when needed, and notes that the change event fires at level start. It also discloses runtime APIs and event behavior, which is unusually rich for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 front-loaded with the core action and affected entities, and most sentences carry useful domain or runtime information. It is somewhat overpacked with API signatures, sample parity, and a verification date, but remains readable and well ordered.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is largely complete on effects, target entity, backpack behavior, file output, and event semantics. The main remaining gap is that two parameters, mapPath and outputName, are not explained.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains icon in detail and gestures at name and startAmount, but mapPath and outputName are not described at all, leaving important invocation details undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: define a currency in a save copy and equip characters with a currency-holding backpack. It also distinguishes the concept from player entities and ties it to shops, item prices, drops, and character inventory, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool creates.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this when defining platform currency for a copied save, including optional starting amounts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as scene_list_currencies or state when not to use it, so routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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