scene_set_faction_hostility

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it writes a new .gil into the workspace and returns its path, and the official save is not touched — clarifying the blast radius implied by destructiveHint=true. It also discloses the non-obvious semantics that hostilePairs is the COMPLETE list and every unlisted pair becomes friendly, which no structured field conveys.

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 operation, then semantics, then use case, then side effects — good ordering and no filler. Minor deductions for the redundant non-English gloss '友善' and for the slightly dense single-sentence hostilePairs explanation that packs example and consequence together.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the essential risks (writes a copy, original untouched, whitelist semantics). It stops short of saying where hostilePairs IDs and mapPath are sourced from, which is the remaining gap an agent would hit in practice.

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 compensate. It does so well for the required hostilePairs parameter — explaining completeness semantics, the pair format, and giving a worked example [[1,3]] with a behavioral reading. However mapPath and outputName are left entirely unexplained (outputName's pattern exists only in the schema), so coverage is partial.

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+resource ('Set which factions fight each other') plus the operating scope ('in a copy of a save'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from scene_list_factions or scene_set_class without opening the 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?

Gives concrete triggering symptoms: 'Use it when creatures attack things they should ignore ... or ignore things they should attack.' This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative tool or says where faction IDs come from (scene_list_factions is a sibling), so routing/exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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