remap-teleporters

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the mechanism: reconstructs old→new id maps from provenance flags and rewrites teleportToken destinations. Discloses idempotency, GM-only restriction, and non-destructive handling of external pointers. Fully transparent.

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?

Concise six-sentence paragraph. Front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds essential context: why needed, mechanism, idempotency, error behavior, and usage instruction. No wasted words.

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 (import process, teleporter remapping) and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, why fresh IDs cause issues, required parameter, invocation timing, idempotency, and reporting of out-of-import destinations. Complete for intended use.

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?

Only one parameter (sourceModule) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds significant meaning: explains how it's used ('reconstructs the old→new scene/region id maps from the provenance flags') and provides an example ('the read-pack module.id'). Clearly explains role beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Second pass of a scene-pack import: rewrite cross-scene teleporter destinations after the scenes + regions have been created.' It identifies the specific verb (remap), resource (teleporter destinations), and context (post-import). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle teleporter remapping.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Call it ONCE after all chosen scenes are imported. GM-only.' It explains when to use (after scenes created, before teleporters functional), idempotency (safe to re-run), and error handling (reports external destinations rather than silent drop). This leaves no ambiguity.

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