Create a custom object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Saves the map' but does not disclose mutation behavior (e.g., whether it modifies the input file or creates a new one by default), potential for errors, or permission requirements. The behavioral impact is under-explained.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing key parameter details. It is efficient but could be slightly better structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter examples).

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and parameter semantics but lacks details on error handling, return value, or what 'Saves the map' means precisely (e.g., in-place vs. new file). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 high (83%), and the description adds value by explaining the newId/baseId pattern with examples ('x000', 'hfoo') and detailing the fields array structure (id, type, value, optional level/column). This clarifies usage beyond the schema 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 it creates a custom object derived from a base type, listing all possible kinds (unit/item/ability/buff/destructable/doodad/upgrade). This differentiates it from sibling tools like wc3_place_unit (placement on map) or wc3_write_objects (bulk writing).

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 implies usage for creating new object definitions from base types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wc3_place_unit (for placing units) or wc3_write_objects (for bulk updates). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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