set_movement_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: structurally invalid routes/pages refuse the write with nothing saved, force overrides validation, and the 505 continuation rows are included. It also clarifies the characterId special values. Lacks mention of success return values, but key behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently packs essential details—event command numbers, characterId meaning, dependency, and validation behavior—without any fluff or repetition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, key parameters, and important safety/validation behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns on success, which would be useful, but the schema covers all parameters and dryRun behavior, making the description sufficiently complete for invocation decisions.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining characterId semantics (-1 player, 0 this event, N event id) and instructing to pass a moveRoute from create_move_route, which goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 specific action: inserting a forced 'Set Movement Route' event command (205 plus 505 continuation rows) into an event page's command list. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_move_route by describing the command insertion context with precise technical details.

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?

Description says to 'Pass a moveRoute from create_move_route', establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It also explains the validation refusal and force override condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the context is evident.

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