paint_tiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important side effect that neighbors' shapes are recomputed from same-kind adjacency when autotiles are used, and that flat tiles are painted as-is. It also explains the layer default and the distinction from set_map_tile. However, it doesn't mention potential edge cases like overwriting behavior or what happens with layer 4/5, though these are partially in the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the autotiling algorithm, then the alternative tool. Every sentence adds relevant information with no filler or repetition.

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 is moderately complex due to autotiling, and the description covers the algorithm, the layer default, and a close sibling. It doesn't mention the dryRun parameter, but that's documented in the schema. Given no output schema and good annotations in the schema, the description is reasonably complete for the agent.

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%, and the schema already explains layer ranges and tileId semantics (autotile base id or raw id). The tool description mostly restates the default layer and tileId kind, adding little beyond the schema. It does mention 'cells to paint' for the tiles parameter, but that's also evident from 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 tool paints specific tiles onto a map with automatic autotiling. It specifies the exact behavior (cell set to tile id, autotile shape recomputation) and distinguishes itself from set_map_tile by noting it is higher-level and handles multiple tiles with autotiling.

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 explicitly names set_map_tile as a lower-level alternative that does a single raw tile with no autotiling, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the default layer, helping the agent decide if layer needs to be specified.

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