level_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the tool 'switches the editor's loaded level' and 'refuses if unsaved changes exist,' which is critical side-effect information. It also states that the result is saved, providing a clear picture of the mutation. This goes beyond a generic description, though it does not detail return values or other edge cases.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action concisely, and the second provides a critical warning. There is zero wasted text, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the main functionality, the optional template, and the key side-effect and failure condition. It doesn't describe the success response, but that is a minor omission given the clear action and warning.

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 description covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by noting that the template is optional and used for copying, but the schema already documents both 'path' and 'template' clearly. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema.

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 the action: 'Create and load a new level (optionally from a template map), then save it.' It names the resource (level) and specifically distinguishes this from sibling tools like level_save, which only saves the current level, and level_actors, which deals with actors in a level.

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 implies the intended usage context: creating a new level, with the optional template parameter. It also gives a clear precondition by warning that it refuses if unsaved changes exist, which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say 'use this instead of level_save,' but the context is clear enough.

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