gameforge_compute_paperdoll_zorder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect: it writes paperdoll_zmatrix.json. However, it omits whether the file is overwritten, where it is written, what permissions or project state are required, and whether the Z-matrix is also returned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then the output, with no filler. It is dense but every clause conveys relevant information, though the long enumeration of body parts is slightly heavy.

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 moderate-complexity computation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is produced (per-angle Z priorities plus a JSON file) but not the return value shape or error/overwrite behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33%: only 'directions' is documented (and the description's '8 or 16 directions' merely echoes the enum). The description adds nothing about project_id or character_id semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Solve ... layering') and a clearly named resource ('per-angle Z-index draw priority' for named body parts) and states that it writes paperdoll_zmatrix.json. No sibling tool overlaps this operation, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

The description never says when to call this versus other pipeline steps, nor what prerequisites (project_id/character_id) must be set up first. Usage is only inferable from the domain phrasing about paper-doll systems; there are no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.

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