torch_export_modding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Produces modding.yml manifest and editable raw or XML assets', which conveys the primary output and side effects (writes files). However, it does not mention potential overwrites, prerequisites like config.yml in srcdir, or whether the ROM is modified, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for an export/write operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and method; the second lists concrete outputs. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, making it highly 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?

With 6 parameters but 100% schema coverage and a clear description of outputs, the definition is nearly complete for an export tool. The main missing piece is explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., config.yml in srcdir) and return behavior, but these are either in the schema or minor for this tool. Overall, an agent can invoke it correctly with the provided information.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning by mentioning 'raw or XML assets', which hints at the xml parameter, but the schema already details each parameter including the xml switch. No additional semantic value beyond that is provided.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Export editable asset files from an N64 ROM using Torch modding export.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling export tools by naming the 'modding.yml manifest' and 'editable raw or XML assets' as outputs, which separates it from torch_export_archive, torch_export_code, and torch_export_headers.

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?

The description clearly states the scenario: exporting editable assets via the Torch modding export. It implies when to use this tool (when moddable, editable assets are needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use torch_export_archive for packed outputs'. This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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