omni_mod_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the mod is only staged and will not be active until the next world load, and even explains how to force activation on a running world. It does not cover potential overwrite/conflict behavior or error states, so it stops short of 5.

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 packed sentences: the main action is front-loaded, and the activation consequence is explained immediately. No wasted words.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and the absence of annotations/output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle: staging, deferred pickup on next load, and reload instructions. The main gap is that it does not explain what happens when 'world' is omitted or what result/output the agent should expect, but the core calling behavior is clear.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains that dataB64 holds the base64-encoded JAR bytes and that the operation targets a world, but it does not clarify the meaning of the required 'filename' parameter or the behavior of the optional 'world' field. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stage') with a clear resource ('a mod JAR') and target ('a world'), then explains the activation model. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like omni_mod_scaffold (creating mods) and omni_mod_inspect (examining mods).

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?

It clearly states the tool is for staging a mod JAR and gives explicit activation guidance: the next world load picks it up, and if a world is running, reload via omni_world_quit + omni_world_enter. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but there is little ambiguity about the intended use.

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