copy_game_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms the write behavior by stating it copies DLLs and changes BeatSaberDir, plus it gives the default destination (parent of the project folder). However, it never says whether existing files in Refs are overwritten, what the force parameter governs, or whether the BeatSaberDir change is reversible — meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: the primary action and target come first, followed by the motivation. No filler, repetition, or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core effect is well conveyed. Still, for a five-parameter mutating tool with zero schema documentation, the description should say what force does and what happens to pre-existing destination contents before an agent can call it confidently.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It covers the destination default and implies set_beat_saber_dir (default true) via 'point BeatSaberDir at it', but leaves force and game_dir entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer overwrite or game-location behavior.

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 verb and resource: copying game Managed/Libs/Plugins DLLs into a local Refs folder and repointing BeatSaberDir. The stated outcome (offline/CI builds without the game installed) makes the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as add_game_references, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Enables offline/CI builds without the game installed' implies the situation in which to use it, but it is framed as a benefit rather than an instruction. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the game must be detected first), and no named alternative like add_game_references.

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