console_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists command names without explaining side effects, value formats, reversibility, or performance impact. For example, freeze_rendering likely stops rendering, but this is not stated.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a list of all valid commands. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 tool has 16 commands with diverse value requirements (booleans, numbers, etc.), but the description lacks per-command semantics or value constraints. An agent cannot reliably invoke all commands correctly without additional knowledge, making the description incomplete for such a complex tool.

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?

The schema describes both parameters ('Effect command' and 'Command value') and lists all enum values, so coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about expected value types or per-command behavior, but since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear action ('Toggle rendering features via console commands') and lists the specific commands. However, 'toggle' is slightly misleading for commands like screen_percentage or tonemapper, which may set values rather than simply toggle.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The command list implies it is for adjusting rendering settings, but no direct alternative is mentioned or excluded.

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