Export to the in-game Build Planner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a file is written to a specific game folder, that confirmation is required first, and that a failure mode returns contents for manual saving. It omits overwrite/reversibility semantics and any permission requirements, so not quite a 5.

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 main action is front-loaded, followed by the confirmation rule and fallback, which is good ordering. The trailing enumeration of twelve gear slots is verbose and would be better expressed as a schema enum, costing a point on conciseness.

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/export tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical behaviors an agent needs: where it writes, that it asks first, and the manual-save fallback. It lacks overwrite explanation, but is largely complete for correct 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?

Schema coverage is only 30%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the twelve legal gear slots (the schema's 'slot' has no description) and explains level ranges for skills/supports and take-at-level for passives, but leaves name, class, ascendancy, description, and overwrite unaddressed.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Write the finished build as a .build file into Path of Exile 2's BuildPlanner folder.' It clearly names the artifact, destination, and in-game pickup point, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_build_guide or evaluate_build.

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?

Gives clear operational context and a key precondition ('Ask the player before writing') plus a well-defined fallback ('If the game folder isn't found, the file contents are returned to save manually'). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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