apply_world

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the mutation effects ('enable/disable jars and write config patches'), which is concrete and useful. But it does not say whether the operation is destructive, reversible, idempotent, or whether it overwrites existing configuration patches, leaving the agent with incomplete safety knowledge.

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 two short sentences with zero redundancy. The core action and effects are front-loaded, and the timing instruction earns its place. Nothing extraneous or vague is present.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose, actions, and timing. But it omits details like prerequisites (e.g., the world profile must exist), possible side effects, and what a successful invocation returns. It is adequate but not complete for an agent operating autonomously.

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 implies that the 'world' parameter is the identity of the world profile being applied, giving some meaning. However, it does not specify whether 'world' is a name, ID, or path, nor does it list valid values or how to obtain them, leaving the parameter underdocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('a world profile to the instance') and immediately clarifies the mechanism with concrete actions: 'enable/disable jars and write config patches.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reset_world or set_world_mods, which have different scopes and effects.

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 timing context with 'Do this before launching,' which tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate, so it stops short of a full decision guide.

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