Replace custom modifier text for Path of Building: Path of Exile 2 builds and explicitly disclose the modifiers as author assumptions, not items, in reports.
Заменить текст пользовательских модификаторов; это предположения автора, а не предметы. Явно раскрывайте их в отчёте.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a destructive, non-read-only write, which "Заменить" (replace) is consistent with. The description adds real context beyond annotations - that the stored content is the author's assumptive modifiers and should be surfaced in reports - but says nothing about whether prior text is overwritten irreversibly, persistence, or validation.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the disambiguation and disclosure note; nothing is padded. Minor cost: the second and third ideas are compressed into one long semicolon clause rather than cleanly separated.
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 one-parameter mutation with a clear annotation profile and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its semantic caveat. It remains incomplete on the practical question an agent must answer before calling: what the accepted text format and constraints are.
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 0% and the single parameter 'text' carries only a type and maxLength. The description names it as custom modifier text but gives no format, syntax, line structure, or size expectations, so it barely compensates for the undocumented parameter.
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 and resource ("Заменить текст пользовательских модификаторов" - replace custom modifier text) and adds a disambiguating clarification that these are author assumptions rather than items, which separates it from pob_add_item. It is not, however, tied to any other sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the note that these are assumptions, not items, tells the agent not to confuse it with item-adding tools, and the instruction to disclose them in the report hints at workflow context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.