Set properties of the player character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates what is modified. It does not say whether changes are client-side or server-replicated, whether they persist across respawns, what permissions are required, or what side effects accompany setting noclip/gravity. No annotation contradiction, but the disclosure is thin for a 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the affected properties enumerated; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is changed but omits scope, persistence, and error behavior. Parameter-level detail is fully covered by the schema, so the remaining gap is behavioral rather than structural.

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 every parameter (including defaults and the UseJumpPower coupling) is already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the property names, adding no syntax, unit, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Modify') and resource ('character stats or physics properties') and enumerates the affected properties, so an agent knows exactly what the tool changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings like execute or teleport-player, so it stops short of a 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as execute (running arbitrary Lua to set the same properties) or teleport-player. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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