Place stamp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the rectangle is REPLACED on every layer, empty cells erase, autotile edges are re-blended including neighboring cells, events get new ids and failing to place on occupied cells aborts the whole placement with a list of offending cells, no rotate/mirror, and a backup is kept. This is exactly the safety and side-effect context a mutation tool needs.

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 main action and placement anchor are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact (replacement, autotile, events, no transforms, backup). It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place; only the closing backup remark could be folded in more tightly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, destructive effects, event handling, failure behavior, and recovery (backup). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 60%; the description compensates for the undocumented includeEvents parameter by explaining its default, effect, and the tile-only fallback, and clarifies that (x, y) is the top-left corner where the whole stamp lands. mapId is only implicitly conveyed via the same-tileset requirement and backup note, leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb (paste) and resource (a stamp made with capture_stamp) onto a map at coordinates, and explicitly ties itself to the capture_stamp sibling. An agent can distinguish place_stamp from paint_tiles or capture_stamp without reading any schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: the stamp must have been captured from the same tileset and must fit entirely within the map. It also explains the includeEvents: false alternative for tile-only placement. It stops short of naming other placement tools (e.g. paint_tiles, generate_map) as alternatives, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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