world_edit

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

With no annotations providing safety hints, the description discloses that the tool changes the running game (GUARDED, requires confirm:true). It also enumerates destructive actions like remove and teleport. This is strong transparency, though it could explicitly state 'this tool modifies the game state'.

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, each packed with essential information. No redundant words. Front-loaded with 'GUARDED' to immediately signal safety implications. The structure is exemplary.

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 tool with 9 possible actions and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the purpose, target, actions, and safety requirement. It could be enhanced by briefly noting when to use each action, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that target can be an entity index or a player's SteamID/name. The schema already covers 71% of parameters with descriptions, so the description's value is moderate but useful for understanding the target type and the confirm requirement.

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 acts on one entity or player with specific actions (remove, teleport, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling read-only tools like read_entities by its mutating nature. Both the verb 'acts' and the resource 'entity or player' are explicit.

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 lists allowed actions and states target types and confirm requirement, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling list implies this is the go-to for modifications. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit when-nots.

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