destroy_all_mass_entities

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: 'with no undo' and the editor-world/PIE-world restriction, which materially affects whether an agent should call it. It stops short of stating permission requirements or ordering caveats, so not a 5.

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 destructive scope and no-undo warning are front-loaded, followed by return shape and the two sibling disambiguations. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly documents the three returned counts itself. Combined with the scope exclusion and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call a parameterless bulk-destroy tool safely.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It appropriately uses the space on return values instead.

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 (destroy) plus resource (every Mass entity) and precise scope (editor world, not PIE world), and explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not. An agent can distinguish it from destroy_mass_entity and despawn_mass_entities without opening any 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 explicit alternatives with the condition selecting each: destroy_mass_entity for a single entity and despawn_mass_entities for one spawner's output. The bulk-delete use case is unambiguous.

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