Open, close or lock doors

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

The description goes beyond annotations by revealing that players see changes immediately, that invalid ids cause a no-op, and that a scene permission level ('change') is required. These behaviors are not encoded in the annotations or schema, providing substantial added context.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the core action is stated first. The validity constraint and permission requirement are included without redundancy, and each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the action, constraints, permission requirements, and immediate effects. The schema fully documents parameters, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarification by defining which wallIds qualify as doors ('door' or 'secret' types), which is essential to avoid invalid calls. It also implicitly aligns with the state enum. This extra value warrants a 4.

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 a specific verb ('set'), a resource ('doors'), and the possible outcomes ('open, closed or locked'). It also adds precision by defining doors as 'walls with door "door" or "secret"', which distinguishes this tool from generic wall manipulation tools in the sibling list.

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 when to use the tool: every id must be a door, otherwise nothing changes, and permission level 'change' is required. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools, no direct door-state sibling exists, so the conditional guidance and prerequisites are sufficient.

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