insanitii_place_ordinary_errand_stations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'crash-resistant' behavior and placement, but it does not disclose side effects such as level loading/saving, mutation of the world, or any risks despite the load_level and save_level parameters implying significant behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core action. The KB reference and example both add practical value without excessive length, though the phrase 'small, crash-resistant UE Python chunks' is vague and could be more informative.

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 placement tool with two boolean parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what ordinary-errand stations are, what load_level/save_level do, or what the expected outcome is. The output schema helps but cannot compensate for missing usage and parameter context.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters, load_level and save_level, at all. The example call with no arguments implies defaults are acceptable, but the agent gets no help understanding what these booleans control or when to override them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Place Insanitii ordinary-errand stations.' It states the implementation style ('small, crash-resistant UE Python chunks'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not differentiate from sibling placement tools like insanitii_place_day1_set_dressing, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 gives a knowledge-base reference and an example call, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or workflow context. There is no explicit guidance on when placing ordinary-errand stations is appropriate or how it fits into the broader Insanitii pipeline.

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