highlight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the effect is visual and short-lived ("for a few seconds"), which implies a safe, non-mutating operation. It does not say whether the object/player must be present, what happens with an invalid guid, or whether the call blocks for the duration.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the parameter detail following. The colour list trails off with an ellipsis but the enumeration is genuinely useful rather than filler.

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 3-parameter, no-output, no-annotation tool the description covers purpose, colour naming, and approximate duration, which is enough to call it. It leaves open where the guid comes from and what the call returns or does on failure, which matters with zero annotation coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well on `color` (TTSim colour name with an example list) and implies `seconds` via "a few seconds", but gives no meaning for `guid` (presumably an object GUID from list_objects) and no units or bounds for `seconds`.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Highlight an object") plus the player-facing effect and duration, which clearly separates it from siblings like move_object or inspect_object. It stops short of naming any sibling directly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase "to point it out to the player" implies the usage context (visual attention cue during play) but there are no explicit when/when-not rules or pointers to alternatives such as inspect_object for non-visual inspection. Usage must be inferred.

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