scene_set_revive

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to establish that this is a mutation; it does add useful context per field, including defaults on a new map, and the note that an arcade respawn is a concrete field combination. It never says what happens to fields that are omitted or what existing settings are replaced, which is the main behavioral gap for a destructive write.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose and semantics well. The tail, however, is dominated by provenance metadata (the editor read on 2026-10-13, an examples/hazards playtest anecdote with an engine call name), which costs space without helping an agent decide whether to call the tool or how to fill the schema.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does most of the semantic work but leaves mapPath and outputName undefined and leaves unclear whether a partial object overwrites or merges with existing revive settings. Those omissions matter for a destructive write on a save copy.

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 description has to carry the parameter meaning, and it does for six of the eight fields: it gives units and defaults for seconds, lives, healthPercent and fallLossPercent, and the boolean polarity for auto and showScreen. mapPath and outputName are never explained, even though outputName is presumably the name of the save copy.

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: it sets how a player's character comes back after going down, i.e. the player-template revive settings, and it does so in a copy of a save. An agent can tell this apart from scene_set_spawn, scene_add_respawn_point and scene_list_respawn_points, all of which are named or implied as separate concerns.

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 a precondition (a respawn point must exist, added via scene_add_respawn_point) and names scene_list_respawn_points as the read counterpart, which amounts to clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude or contrast with scene_set_spawn, which is the nearest sibling an agent might confuse it with.

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