omni_world_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal useful behavior (mods are staged before launch, template meanings are concrete), but it does not say whether creation also launches/enters the world, whether an existing world is overwritten, what side effects occur, or what the return value looks like. For a mutating tool this is a material gap.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information. The template list is especially efficient because it compresses four enum meanings into a single readable clause, though there is a minor grammar issue in 'mods stages them before launch.'

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to predict the tool's full behavior. It covers the happy path and template selection but omits post-create behavior, return value, and semantics for several parameters, leaving meaningful uncertainty before invocation.

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 17%, so the description must compensate for weak schema docs. It adds real meaning to mods ('stages them before launch') and to the template parameter (each enum value described: void_single, void_platform_7x7, flat, default). However, seed, cheats, gametype, and folder/name semantics are left mostly to inference from property names and the enum values.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new world') and immediately distinguishes the action from sibling tools like omni_world_enter or omni_world_scan. The explicit template ids with their physical meanings further pin down exactly what the tool does.

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 intended use case is implied clearly ('Create a new world'), and the note about mods being staged before launch hints at a common use pattern. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over omni_world_enter, omni_world_scan, or omni_worlds, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative routing.

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