set_map_tile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly notes raw engine integers and the lack of autotile/passability awareness, which is useful. But it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing tiles, error behavior, or the difference between dryRun and actual writes, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences, no fluff. The verb, target, coordinates, and layer bound are in the first sentence; the critical caveat about raw IDs and low-level behavior is in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 simple setter with full schema coverage, the description covers the core semantics and key caveat. It doesn't explain return values or error conditions, but none are promised by the schema or output. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is nearly complete, only missing explicit alternative references.

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 reinforces key semantics (raw tile ID, layer range 0-5) but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already provides. The dryRun property is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 ('Set a single raw tile ID'), the resource (tile at x,y on a z-layer), and the scope (single, raw, 0-5). It distinguishes itself from bulk or high-level tools by explicitly calling itself a low-level primitive, separating it from siblings like paint_tiles and fill_area.

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 context is clear: this is for setting a single raw tile without autotile/passability awareness, which implies it's not for bulk painting or high-level editing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it doesn't fully meet the bar for explicit exclusions.

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