edit_entire_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool edits and replaces content, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'Returns the completely modified level data' adds some behavioral context, but it's minimal for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by a detailed parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining similar optional fields).

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation tool, no annotations) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameters thoroughly, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like error cases or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, constraints (e.g., tile types 0-7, ranges for percentages), and optionality, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of documentation and providing essential context for correct usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Edit an entire VibeTide level, replacing all tiles and optionally metadata.' It specifies the verb ('edit'), resource ('VibeTide level'), and scope ('entire'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like edit_level_metadata or edit_level_tile, which likely handle partial edits.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like edit_level_metadata and edit_level_tile that handle partial edits, the description doesn't indicate that this tool is for complete replacements or when that's preferable, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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