edit_level_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies level data by replacing an entire row, which implies mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The return statement is helpful but minimal. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet-point parameter explanations, and a return value note. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the Args section clarifies parameters, and the Returns statement completes the picture. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage but good description compensation, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be detailed), the description is moderately complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks critical behavioral context like error conditions or side effects. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but gaps remain for safe agent invocation.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'encoded_level' comes from 'a URL or sharing link', clarifies 'row' is '0-based, from top', and specifies 'new_row_tiles' values are 'tile types' with range '0-7'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail array length constraints or validation rules.

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 ('Edit an entire row') and resource ('in a VibeTide level'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_level_tile' (single tile) and 'edit_entire_level' (whole level), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The verb+resource combination is specific but could be more precise about the scope of editing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_level_tile' or 'edit_entire_level'. It mentions the source of 'encoded_level' (URL or sharing link) but doesn't explain prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual constraints. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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