manage_system

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate not read-only, not destructive, idempotent), the description discloses that writes are immediate, set_starting_position is not validated, and name_switch/name_variable is documentation-only. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence and subsequent details per action, but slightly verbose. However, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers all actions and parameters comprehensively, including warnings about unvalidated map IDs and no effect on saved games. Lacks error handling details, but acceptable given no output schema.

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 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant meaning: explains the 'full' section is large, unnamed entries are empty strings (useful for finding free IDs), and set_starting_position requires map validation via another tool.

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 clearly states the tool reads or edits project-wide settings in data/System.json, lists all actions, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle other database entries, maps, or events.

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 explains when to use each action (e.g., 'get' for reading sections, 'set_starting_position' for starting position), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.

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