Set RootPart mode

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds that the operation persists state and returns a live bridge snippet, and discloses the re-run-to-load-plugins side effect. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though permissions/reversibility are unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and value forms, with the re-run caveat placed last. The embedded snippet identifier is dense but informative rather than wasteful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, accepted inputs, persistence, and the returned snippet plus re-run behavior. Enough for an agent to call it correctly; only permission and error semantics are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'mode' (index/name/plugin) and 'velocity' (0-2). The description largely restates the mode value forms and adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Persist a RootPart mode pick') and enumerates accepted value forms (builtin 0-6 by index/name, active plugin by name). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling plugin or settings tools.

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 closing line 'Re-run to load newly enabled plugins' implies the tool should be re-invoked after enabling a plugin, which is useful context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance relative to reanim_enable_root_plugin or reanim_get_root_settings.

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