Modify doodad(s)

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'Saves the map,' which is important for a mutation tool, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting backups, required permissions, error handling when doodads are not found, or concurrency issues). This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.

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 a single sentence of 14 words that front-loads the action and key matching criteria. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. Ideal conciseness.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, and 100% schema coverage, but no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns (if anything) or how the agent should expect the result (e.g., confirmation message, error on failure). For a mutation tool with side effects, this gap in completeness is noticeable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a brief summary linking select criteria to action but does not explain the meaning of individual fields in the 'set' object (e.g., x, y, z, angle, scale, variation, life). Baseline is 3, and the description provides marginal extra value.

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 action ('Change fields') and the resource ('doodad(s)'), and specifies the matching criteria (editorId, index, or type). It also notes the map-saving side effect, all in one concise sentence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wc3_delete_doodad or wc3_place_doodad.

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 modifying existing doodads but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting and re-placing, or using wc3_write_objects). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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