create-teleporter

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

Without annotations, the description provides important behavioral details: trigger rectangles are placed, grid-snapped by default, regions default to GM-only visibility, and the order of operations. It does not mention permissions or potential side effects, but covers most key behaviors.

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds useful information. It is structured logically: purpose, then mechanics, then details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose and behavior well but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., region IDs or status). For a tool with no output schema, this is a notable gap, leaving the agent unsure of the response format.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall concept of two-way vs one-way and the triggering mechanism, which goes beyond the parameter descriptions. It also mentions grid-snapping and GM visibility, which are behavioral but supplement parameter understanding.

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 a region teleporter between two points on existing scenes, distinguishing it from create-scene which only does this at import time. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'teleporter' with clear scope.

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 explains when to use: for creating teleporters on existing scenes, and mentions that it handles the chicken-and-egg problem by creating both regions before linking. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools like remap-teleporters, but the context is clear enough.

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