edit_level_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies level data (implied mutation) and returns modified data, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. The description adds some behavioral context (efficiency comparison, optional parameters) but doesn't fully cover traits like safety or constraints beyond what's implied by the action.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 6 parameters) and no annotations, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, parameters, and returns. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error conditions or side effects. The presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section) helps, but some gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed 'Args' section explaining each parameter's purpose, including optional status, data types (e.g., string, integer, number), and value ranges (e.g., '0-10', '0-100'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting all 6 parameters.

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 only the metadata of a VibeTide level without changing the tile layout.' It specifies the verb ('edit'), resource ('metadata of a VibeTide level'), and scope ('without changing the tile layout'), and distinguishes it from sibling edit_entire_level by emphasizing efficiency for metadata-only changes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'This is much more efficient than edit_entire_level when you only want to change game parameters like enemy count, spawn rates, name, or description.' It names the alternative tool and specifies the use case (metadata-only changes), offering clear context for selection.

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