Copies a vanilla row from a source table into a new row asset in the active mod, providing a starting point for customization.
Copy a vanilla row into a new row asset in the active mod, as a starting point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | Yes | ||
| source_row | Yes | ||
| new_row_name | Yes | ||
| source_table | Yes | ||
| row_asset_class | Yes | ||
| override_existing_row | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say that this mutates the active mod, what permissions are needed, or what override_existing_row does when an existing row collides — a serious gap for a write operation with a destructive override flag.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this description is far too thin — an agent cannot confidently map values to parameters or predict side effects.
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%, so all six parameters rely on the description for meaning. It only loosely implies source_row and new_row_name and leaves source_table vs. table, row_asset_class, and override_existing_row entirely unexplained.
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: copy a row into a new row asset in the active mod. This is more informative than a tautology, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like duplicate_asset or upsert_datatable_rows, and 'vanilla row' is unexplained jargon.
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?
Only 'as a starting point' hints at intent; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of duplicate_asset or upsert_datatable_rows, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.