set_game_directory

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope — exactly which files can be mutated and that auto mode may create a new .csproj.user — but says nothing about whether explicit targets overwrite an existing value, create the file if absent, or touch shared files like Directory.Build.props that affect other projects.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading what is written before the auto-mode fallback rule. Slightly dense with file names, but every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the write targets and auto behavior are covered. However, with four parameters at zero schema coverage, the two unexplained parameters (game_dir, set_reference_path) leave the definition incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantics. It explains target=auto only, leaving the user/project/props enum values, the nullable game_dir (default null), and set_reference_path completely undefined in both schema and description.

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 ('Write') and the exact properties and files affected: BeatSaberDir/GameDirectory in the project, its .csproj.user, or Directory.Build.props. That is far more precise than the name alone and clearly different from siblings like set_version or add_game_references, though it never names an alternative.

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 default behavior of target=auto is explained (update existing definitions, otherwise create a .csproj.user), which implies when the default is appropriate. But there is no explicit guidance on when to pick user/project/props instead of auto, and no mention of when this tool should be used versus related setup tools 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.