build_event_commands

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

Annotations already declare the safe pure-function profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantial context beyond them: no file writes, no project selection needed, the return shape {commands, warnings?}, the end-marker convention for fragments vs branches, and that game-reference validation is deferred to insert time.

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?

Appropriately sized for an 83-parameter tool and front-loaded with the core purpose and routing before the finer MV/MZ semantics. It is a dense single paragraph with no wasted sentence, though the lack of any structural breaks makes the later constraints harder to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does explain the return value ({commands, warnings?}), which is the key gap it needed to close. Combined with the fragment/branch nesting rules and MV-vs-MZ caveats, it is largely complete for this complexity, though the 46% of undocumented parameters leave some functional territory uncovered.

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 only 54% across 83 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does add real cross-parameter semantics: 'kind selects the command; only fields belonging to that kind are accepted,' the troop-only kind list, the MV Show Text four-parameter rule, plugin_command emitting code 356, and the integer-or-decimal-string ID rule. It still leaves many individual parameters undocumented, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (build an RPG Maker MV event-command fragment) and immediately scopes it against the sibling that actually writes ('without writing files or requiring a selected project'). An agent can distinguish this from insert_event_commands without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'feed commands to insert_event_commands, or nest them in a choice/conditional builder,' which names the downstream alternative and the compose-vs-insert choice. It does not state any when-not condition or prerequisites for this tool itself, so it stops short of a full 5.

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