teleport_player

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation of the active playtest character's position and hints at a play-session precondition ('playtest character'), but says nothing about required game state, permission/authority needs, failure cases, or whether the move is reversible.

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 the verb and resource first, plus a compact parenthetical of use cases. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 simple two-optional-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and usage scenarios adequately; no output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is only missing explicit precondition/state guidance for calling it, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so both 'player' and 'position' (including the Vector3 format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the word 'position', so the baseline 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 ('Teleport a playtest character to a position') with a scope qualifier ('playtest') that separates it from studio-editing tools. It is clear, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest player-affecting siblings (respawn_player, kill_player), so it falls just short of 5.

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 'testing checkpoints, boss rooms, mazes without walking' gives concrete when-to-use context, which is genuinely helpful for an agent choosing among player tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so it does not reach the explicit when-not/alternative routing of a 5.

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