place_prop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains critical semantics (e.g., heightFeet describes visual height, not entity position), covers prop types and cover mechanics, and includes an example with climbable properties. However, it does not address potential side effects like persistence across sessions or interaction limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 well-structured with sections for height semantics, prop types, and cover types, and includes a detailed example. While it is appropriately sized for a complex tool, some parts could be more concise (e.g., the height semantics explanation is verbose). Overall, it is front-loaded with key information and uses formatting effectively, but minor verbosity prevents a perfect score.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and provides an illustrative example. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the example showing expected input structure, making it sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in the given context.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 92% coverage. It clarifies the semantics of heightFeet (critical for understanding elevation), explains prop types with examples (e.g., cliff, wall), details cover types with D&D 5e rules, and provides a comprehensive example that illustrates parameter usage. This compensates for any gaps in the schema and enhances understanding of complex parameters like climbDC and cover.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('improvised prop/object on the battlefield during combat'), distinguishing it from siblings like update_terrain or generate_terrain_patch. It explicitly defines props as 'free-form terrain features with rich description that can be interacted with,' providing clear differentiation from other 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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('during combat') and offers examples of props (e.g., ladders, wagons, trees), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. While it implies usage for combat terrain features, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like update_terrain.

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