edit_entities

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds rich behavior: batch atomicity, whole-batch rejection on new validation errors, 'one undo step' integration with the undo sibling, absolute-unit and radian conventions, and the mirror transform's opposite-rotation behavior. It clearly discloses side effects and conditional behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded; each sentence earns its place (scope, units, mirror behavior, atomicity/undo). There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 destructive, batched mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what a successful call returns, the role of expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency behavior), and which fields each operation type requires. These are real gaps for correct invocation, though atomicity, validation rollback, undo, and unit conventions are well covered.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates for the least-guessable parameters: x/y are absolute world units, yaw is in radians, mirror:true resolves the unique rotational opponent and applies the opposite transform, and operations map to the add/move/remove enum. However, sessionId, expectedRevision, and per-operation field requirements (id/team/subtype/token) remain unexplained, so the compensation is strong but partial.

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 specific verbs and a resource: 'Atomically add, move or remove ground structures.' This cleanly separates it from siblings like edit_terrain (terrain vs. ground structures) and validate_map (validation is folded into the batch rather than a separate pass). An agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.

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 resource scope (ground structures) implies when the tool applies, and the sibling set makes the differentiation from edit_terrain fairly evident. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, so routing must be inferred from the resource type rather than stated.

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