roblox_advanced

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this tool can mutate state. The description adds a credit-spend warning not present in annotations, which is useful, but it does not explain what 'call' actually changes, whether actions are reversible, or how results are returned.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the main actions, but the sentence 'Includes logs, screenshots, input, assets.' is ambiguous and does not clearly earn its place. The action-to-parameter mapping is also left implicit, reducing structural clarity.

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 complex meta-tool with six parameters, nested objects, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value details, how arguments are used in the call action, and the specific consequences of each action, leaving the agent under-informed.

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% for six parameters, so the description must carry full parameter meaning. It hints at uses (e.g., 'names' for list, 'describe ONE schema', 'page a saved result') but never explicitly maps parameters like tool, arguments, result_id, limit, or offset to their actions, falling far short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 enumerates several actions (list, describe, call, result) that map to the action enum, but it never states a single clear verb+resource for the tool as a whole. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling roblox_* tools, leaving the agent to guess when to use this advanced interface.

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 only usage guidance is 'use only when asked' tied to credit spending. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the selection criteria largely to inference.

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