roblox_edit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond that: the whole batch is a single Undo recording and any failure cancels the batch (atomicity), which is critical for a destructive multi-operation call, plus the typed-value encoding format.

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?

Extremely dense and front-loaded: the action list leads, followed by atomicity, then type encoding, then addressing. Every sentence carries information, though the telegraphic fragments (e.g. 'Use as/ref to address newly created instances') trade readability for brevity.

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 destructive, nested-operation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it mutates, that edits are atomic and undoable, how values are typed, and how new instances are referenced. It omits return/error shape and operation-limit behavior (maxItems 100), but the core calling contract is complete.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It does add the typed-value grammar for the 'value' parameter (Vector3/Color3/CFrame/UDim2/Enum/Instance) and explains the as/ref addressing mechanism, which the schema leaves as bare strings. But it says nothing about path, parent, properties, remove, or name, so the coverage gap is only partially filled.

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 names the specific resource (Roblox instances) and enumerates the seven operations it performs (create/set/move/clone/delete/attribute/tag), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like roblox_script or roblox_query, but the operation list is distinctive enough to imply the scope.

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 closing constraint 'Edit mode only' gives one clear usage condition, and the action list implies batch editing is the use case. However, it never says when to prefer this over roblox_script or roblox_advanced, and no alternative is named, leaving routing to inference.

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