manage_interaction

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

The description only says 'create' and 'set up', which matches the non-read-only annotation but adds no details about side effects, whether existing objects are modified, or if any actions can be destructive. Annotations already signal mutating but non-destructive behavior; the description adds no new behavioral context beyond that.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the high complexity (73 parameters, 22 action enum values), the description is far too brief. It doesn't map actions to object types, explain how actions relate to parameters, or indicate required follow-up steps. It provides a high-level overview but not enough context to effectively use the tool in many scenarios.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for approximately 99% of parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It doesn't, which is acceptable given high schema coverage, but it also doesn't add any extra semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 creates interactive objects (doors, switches, chests, levers) and sets up destructible meshes and trigger volumes, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like manage_blueprint or manage_volumes by focusing on interactive elements, but it omits the broader management scope (configuring, adding events, getting info) visible in the action enum, so it's not a fully accurate purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like manage_volumes or manage_blueprint, nor when to select specific actions from the enum. The description implies it is for interaction-related tasks but does not explicitly state conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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