set_kill_z

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that values are re-read off WorldSettings rather than echoed, that the bounds-check flag gates effectiveness (silent no-op that looks like a bug), that a bad damage type is caught before any write, and that the operation dirties the map requiring save_level. Rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and its gating condition come first, prerequisites and side effects follow. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical detail 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies a full return shape and the persistence/undo semantics an agent needs. Combined with the prerequisite and damage-type validation notes, nothing material is missing for a 2-param mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates that the damage type is optional. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new format/syntax detail.

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 (set the KillZ death plane on the EDITOR world's WorldSettings) and precisely describes the effect: actors below the Z are destroyed. It is clearly separable from read-side siblings like get_world_settings_detail and get_world_settings.

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?

Explains the enabling condition ('provided the world's bounds checks are enabled') and points to get_world_settings_detail to read that flag, plus the save_level dependency after mutating. No explicit 'do not use' clause or alternative setter is named, but the usage context is clear.

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