create-region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that behaviors pass through verbatim, that teleportToken requires pre-existing system.destinations, that shapes are carried whole, and that the tool is GM-only. It also states the return value (created region ids). This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding necessary caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical about v14 shapes and the teleportToken explanation make it slightly long. Still, it is efficient for the complexity it covers.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key context: prerequisites, alternatives, GM-only restriction, return value, and shape/behavior semantics. It could mention error cases or what happens if the scene is not found, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that shapes are carried whole in canvas px, that behaviors pass through verbatim, and that teleportToken needs system.destinations already set. It also clarifies the visibility values and the sceneIdentifier format. This goes beyond the schema's field 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 tool creates one or more Regions on an existing scene, and explicitly distinguishes it from create-teleporter and add-region-behavior. It names the resource (Regions), the action (create), and the context (existing scene), making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use create-teleporter for the two-new-region convenience, and add-region-behavior to wire a behavior onto an existing region. It also states the prerequisite that a teleportToken must already have system.destinations set, and notes GM-only access. This is strong routing and usage context.

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