Replace a file in a WC3 map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It states the basic operation (replace/add from disk and save) but omits critical behavioral details such as whether existing files are overwritten, handling of missing paths, side effects on map integrity, or any authentication/permission requirements.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that convey the core purpose. Every word is meaningful, and the structure front-loads the action and primary use case.

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 description is incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool. It fails to explain default behavior for outPath, error conditions (e.g., if mapPath does not exist), confirmation of success, or any side effects on the map file. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such detail.

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 100% with all four parameters having descriptions. The description adds minimal extra context by framing the operation as 'replace or add' and mentioning the use case, but does not explain defaults (e.g., outPath default) or format constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (replace or add) and the resource (internal file in a WC3 map). It explicitly mentions the use case of swapping models/textures/imports, which distinguishes it from reading-oriented siblings like wc3_read_file.

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 gives a vague usage hint ('useful for swapping models/textures/imports') but does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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