Set sandbox settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that changes are in-place, preserves comments/ordering/untouched settings, that values are raw game enums where 1 means a specific option, and that changes take effect after restart. This goes far beyond a simple 'update' and gives the agent critical operational context.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds unique value. There is no fluff or repetition; example syntax is bundled into the parameter guidance. It is dense yet highly readable.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (nested objects, enums, side effects), the description covers all major areas: the in-place behavior, the need to consult pz_get_sandbox, the restart requirement, and the rejection of unknown names. Since an output schema exists, not describing return values is acceptable, and the description fully equips the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it explains dotted names for nested settings and the raw enum pitfall, while the schema already covers unknown name rejection and provides an example. This additional context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change sandbox settings in place', clearly identifying the tool's action and target. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pz_set_settings by emphasizing in-place modification that preserves comments, ordering, and untouched settings. This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.

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 provides clear usage context: it tells users to use dotted names for nested settings and to look up raw values with pz_get_sandbox first. It also notes the restart requirement, which informs when to apply changes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it directly to pz_set_settings, though the preservation hint implies the distinction.

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