edit_level_tile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool modifies a level (implied mutation) and returns modified data, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is basic but adequate for the core operation.

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 followed by parameter explanations and return value. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary information. The formatting with Args/Returns sections enhances readability without verbosity.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description provides good parameter context and states the return purpose. It covers the essential what/how for a tile-editing operation, though could benefit from more behavioral details given the mutation nature and lack of annotations.

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 meaningful context for all 4 parameters: encoded_level source, row/col indexing (0-based), and new_tile_type range/legend reference. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though tile legend details aren't fully explained.

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 specific action ('Edit a single tile'), target resource ('in a VibeTide level'), and distinguishes from siblings like edit_entire_level, edit_level_row, and edit_level_metadata by specifying it's for a single tile. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when modifying individual tiles in a level, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like edit_entire_level or edit_level_row. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.

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