apply_multiple_gameplay_effects

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond annotations: entries are loaded and applied independently, so a bad path does not abort the rest, and it enumerates the return fields. It does not mention permission/auth requirements.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and dense. However, the trailing 'Returns: {...}' block partially restates the return fields already listed in sentence two, with some fields (error, effect_class, active_handle, actor_name) only appearing in the brace list, creating mild redundancy and awkward structure.

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 no output schema, the description correctly documents the return shape, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. The partial-failure semantics fill an important gap for a batch apply. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit guidance on alternatives such as apply_gameplay_effect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents level, actor_name, and effect_classes with examples. The description's 'at one level to' adds only a slight reminder that level applies uniformly; it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Apply), resource (GameplayEffect classes), scope (several, at one level, on an editor-world actor ASC). The plural framing implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling apply_gameplay_effect, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 implied by 'at one level' and 'editor-world actor ability system component,' and the partial-failure note hints at batch semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to apply_gameplay_effect versus this tool. An agent must infer the choice from the tool name.

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