edit_terrain

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: units, operation-specific value semantics, ground-structure resnapping, validation-error rejection, and single undo step. These are non-obvious side effects that an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 compact sentences deliver purpose, units, operation semantics, side effects, and undo behavior with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

The description is strong for raise/lower/flatten usage and warns about validation and undo, but it is incomplete for a tool with a nested 7-property brush object and no output schema. The smooth and texture operations and the texture parameter are not explained, so an agent could not confidently invoke every valid operation.

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 description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains coordinates/radius/height units and raise/lower/flatten value semantics, and hints at mirror. However, it does not clarify the 'smooth' or 'texture' operations, the texture property, or the role of sessionId/expectedRevision, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply one circular terrain brush' on terrain. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling edit_entities and validate_map by making the terrain-brush scope explicit.

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 gives clear context for use: this is the tool for a single terrain-brush edit, with mirroring and operations. It does not explicitly say 'use edit_entities instead for entities' or 'use undo to revert', so it stops short of a 5, but the intended usage is unambiguous enough.

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