set_current_level

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, yet the description adds real value: it discloses that a missing or not-loaded/visible level yields an error rather than a silent fallback, and that already_current:true signals a no-op. It does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive, which is the one loose end.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the prerequisite in the first two sentences, then adds error/idempotency semantics and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, though the returns sentence is slightly verbose for three booleans plus a string.

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 describing the return object (current_level, changed, already_current, success) is necessary and done. Combined with the error behavior and the sibling hand-off, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so the single level_name parameter (with its 'persistent' vs short-name-not-path guidance) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource and defines the otherwise-ambiguous term 'CURRENT' explicitly ('where newly spawned or pasted actors will land'). It also names the related siblings (spawn_actor, paste_actors, move_actors_to_level), so an agent can place it precisely among neighbors.

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 when-to-use ('set it before spawn_actor / paste_actors when a map is split into streaming sub-levels'), the consequence of skipping it ('everything piles into whichever level happens to be active'), and an explicit alternative for the inverse case (move_actors_to_level). Routing and exclusions are both present.

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