scene_set_level_settings

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful scope: it writes a NEW .gil into the workspace and leaves the official save untouched, which materially reassures the agent about what is at risk. It stops short of stating permission/auth needs or whether an existing outputName is overwritten.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence conveys operational detail rather than filler. It is a dense single paragraph and the switching between Chinese field labels (自定义仇恨, 负载需求档位) and English costs a little readability.

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, and the description still tells the agent what comes back (a new .gil path) and that the source save is unaffected. For a four-parameter, non-required, annotation-covered mutation tool, that covers everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains the two enum parameters in real depth (aggro-node behavior, load tier values 1000/4000 and device warnings). mapPath and outputName are left completely unaddressed, and no defaults are stated despite nothing being required.

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?

"Change level settings in a copy of a save" states a specific verb and resource, and the aggroMode/loadTier explanations make the scope concrete. It never names scene_get_level_settings, so the read/write split with that sibling must be inferred from "Change" alone.

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?

It gives strong guidance for choosing enum values ("custom" when a graph should direct each creature, "default" to leave it to creatures; "low" for a new map, "high" with a platform warning). It gives no guidance on when to call this versus scene_get_level_settings, nor on when all four parameters can be omitted given required=0.

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