build_transfer_player

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only: returns { command }', disclosing a key behavioral trait beyond the tool's name. It also explains runtime resolution of variable IDs for mapId/x/y when designation='variable'. This is valuable, though it could disclose more about error handling or validation behavior.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose, and every clause adds information. It covers the main action, the insertion context, variable mode, and read-only behavior without waste.

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 builder tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function, read-only nature, and variable-resolution mode. It identifies the returned object as { command }. It does not elaborate on all parameter defaults or edge cases, but the schema covers parameter details, and the description provides sufficient high-level context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief note that mapId/x/y are variable IDs resolved at runtime when designation is 'variable', which largely reiterates the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema already describes.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('Transfer Player (201) event command'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling build_* commands by specifying it moves the party to (x, y) on a map. It also mentions the intended downstream use ('insertion via insert_event_commands').

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it builds a specific event command for later insertion. It also explains the variable designation behavior, which affects how parameters are interpreted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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