Set param

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: values are validated against the param's type and range, and changes are ephemeral (last until game_start or reload). It does not say what happens on invalid input (error vs rejection) or whether the change is immediately observable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then validation, then lifetime. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 zero-coverage, three-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers validation and duration but leaves the key/group addressing model and error behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for three required parameters. The description explains the semantics of 'value' (validated against the param's type and range), but gives no meaning for 'group' vs 'key' — they are not defined anywhere, so an agent must guess the addressing scheme.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Set a tunable param live'), which is clear and distinct from the sibling read-oriented tool game_params. It does not explicitly name that sibling or otherwise differentiate, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is implied by 'live' and 'tunable param' — i.e., use it during a running game to change parameters. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus game_params (read) or how it interacts with game_start/reload beyond a lifecycle note.

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