create_transfer_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: validates both endpoints exist and are in-bounds before writing, and explains trigger behavior. However, it does not mention return value or error messaging, which are important for a tool with no output 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 providing trigger guidance, then validation and next-step advice. Every sentence contributes operational value without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers purpose, validation, and parameter nuances, it omits return value details for a tool with no output schema. An agent would benefit from knowing what the tool returns (e.g., created event ID) to chain operations. This is a clear gap in an otherwise rich description.

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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3, but the description adds practical meaning beyond the schema: it explains trigger 0/1 semantics in terms of door vs. edge teleport, and advises on graphic usage. This elevates parameter understanding beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific action: 'Wire two maps together: create a Transfer Player (command 201) event at (x,y) on a map that warps the player to (targetX,targetY) on targetMapId.' This clearly identifies the tool as creating a transfer event with precise command and destination semantics, distinguishing it from generic map-event tools like create_map_event.

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 concrete usage context: trigger 0 for a door (with graphic) and trigger 1 for an edge teleport (invisible), plus a follow-up recommendation to use validate_connectivity. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the scenario is clear.

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