set_world_mods

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source for behavioral information. It clearly states the mutation ('enable or disable') and adds a useful side-effect detail: required dependencies are kept automatically. However, it is silent on whether changes are applied immediately, whether disabled dependencies are affected, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second adds a significant dependency detail. It is concise, though it sacrifices some needed context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the apply boolean, how to specify the world, or what happens after enabling/disabling mods. The dependency note helps, but an agent would still have to guess at key execution semantics.

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 only 50%, with world and apply left undocumented. The description does not mention apply at all and only loosely relates 'world profile' to the world parameter, without clarifying the expected value. The enable/disable arrays are documented in the schema, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond that.

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 names a specific action ('Enable or disable specific mods') and a resource ('world profile'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like apply_world or analyze_mods, but the phrase 'specific mods' helps distinguish this from bulk/world-level operations.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_world, recommend_mods, or analyze_mods. The description implies the use case of toggling mods, but it never states exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose between sibling tools.

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