set_data_layer_runtime_state

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/idempotentHint/readOnlyHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds meaningful context: LIVE vs initial state, the World Partition requirement, and the 'honest gate' (applied:false + note) rather than failure outside PIE. It stops short of explaining what is actually destroyed (e.g., unloading data-layer actors), which is the one behavioral gap the destructiveHint implies.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and gate condition, followed by a compact Returns line. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites (World Partition, PIE), failure-mode semantics, the alternative tool, and even the return shape. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret it 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 schema already documents all three parameters including the enum values that the description repeats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the 3 baseline correct.

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 (Sets), resource (LIVE runtime state of a runtime data layer), and scope (running World Partition game/PIE). It even names the sibling that handles the non-PIE case, so an agent can distinguish the two data-layer-state tools without opening schemas.

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 (running PIE game, World Partition map required) and when-not (outside PIE), plus the fallback alternative set_data_layer_initial_runtime_state. Nothing is left to inference about tool selection.

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