Generate Luau snippet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'without changing files' reinforces that safety profile rather than contradicting it. It adds the 'executor-ready' framing, but says nothing about the return format, size limits, or whether generated code has side effects when run externally.

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 zero filler: verb, resource, supported kinds, and the key non-mutating constraint all appear up front. Nothing needs to be trimmed or reordered.

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 read-only generation tool with fully documented schema this is nearly sufficient, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is that there is no output schema and the description never states that the result is Luau code text the caller must run itself, which is the one thing an agent would want confirmed.

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 100% with a documented enum for `kind` and per-parameter descriptions, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's enumeration of kinds mirrors the enum without adding format, constraints, or interaction rules (e.g., that `custom` only applies to kind=custom) beyond what the schema shows.

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 (build a Luau snippet) and enumerates the supported kinds (dance/moveset/theme/custom action). The phrase 'without changing files' behaviorally distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like reanim_create_dance or reanim_switch_moveset, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

The clause 'without changing files' implies the usage context (generate code for external execution instead of applying changes), which is meaningful routing signal. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over reanim_create_dance, reanim_create_moveset, or the apply/switch tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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