respawn_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether a playtest session must be active, whether the player must be alive, what happens to the existing character, or whether the action requires elevated permissions — all material for a force-mutation tool.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and a useful parenthetical use case. No filler, though it is arguably terse for a state-mutating tool.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description should at least state the precondition (an active playtest) and the effect on the player. Neither is present, leaving the agent guessing about safe 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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter documented as 'Player name (default: first player)'. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('Force-respawn') and resource ('a playtest character'), and the parenthetical clarifies the testing intent. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like kill_player or teleport_player, but the action is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(tests spawn logic, retry buttons)' implies the scenario where this tool is appropriate, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., kill_player + playtest) and gives no when-not condition, so usage must be inferred.

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