world_build

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

The word 'atomically' adds one useful behavioral trait, implying all-or-nothing application. However, with no annotations, the description fails to disclose side effects, whether it overwrites existing worlds, permission requirements, or what happens on partial failure. For a mutation-style tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates its scope without filler. The list is slightly ambiguous—some items like 'spawn points' and 'roads' do not appear in the input schema—but the description remains efficient.

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?

Given nested object parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling toolset, the description is too thin for an agent to call the tool correctly. Missing details include required parameter semantics, how nested objects are structured, expected behavior, return values, and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter schema. It mentions several concepts (zones, terrain, lighting, spawn points, roads, interaction anchors) but does not clarify how they map to the actual properties (theme, zones, terrain, lighting) or define expected object shapes and value formats.

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 clear verb ('Construct') and a specific resource ('world'/spatial layout), enumerating zones, spawn points, lighting, terrain, roads, and interaction anchors. This distinguishes it from more narrowly scoped siblings like terrain_fill_block or scene_organize, though it does not name a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as context_build, terrain_fill_block, scene_organize, or instance_create. The description implies a broad world-construction role but gives no selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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