manage_level_structure

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

The annotations mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not describe side effects, whether actions are irreversible, or what assets might be modified. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description provides zero additional behavioral transparency.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary action ('Create levels and sublevels') followed by configuration domains. This is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite a rich schema (52 parameters, 17 action enum values), the description is far too minimal to orient an agent. It does not explain the action-driven nature of the tool, which parameters apply to which actions, or how operations like get_level_structure_info differ from create_packed_level_actor. The description relies entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for such a complex tool.

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 98%, so the schema already documents most parameters with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level guidance, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage. It does not explain how parameters combine for specific actions, but the schema already provides baseline clarity.

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's function with specific verbs: 'Create levels and sublevels. Configure World Partition, streaming, data layers, HLOD, and level instances.' It names distinct resources and operations, making the general purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_level or build_environment, which may also handle level creation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate. The description only lists capabilities without contextual usage advice.

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