Check Roblox APIs for deprecation

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that each entry is checked against the live API dump and what criteria are verified, going beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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?

Two sentences carry a dense but complete message: what it does, what input looks like, what checks are performed, and when to use it. There is no filler, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple non-destructive batch-checking tool, the description covers purpose, input format, verification criteria, and usage context. The lack of an output schema could be helped by describing the result shape, but the gaps are minor and annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

The description adds useful meaning for the 'members' parameter through examples like 'Humanoid.MoveTo' and 'BodyVelocity', including naming conventions. However, schema description coverage is 50%, and the description does not explain 'max_tokens' behavior or why an agent might adjust it.

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 states a specific action ('Batch-check Roblox APIs'), a clear resource (the live API dump), and the exact dimensions checked: existence, deprecation, security restrictions, and yielding. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_engine_api or search_creator_docs.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this whenever you are about to write or review Roblox code' and explains why stale APIs appear in models. It does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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