ppsspp_write16

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

The description highlights destructive behavior ('overwrites two bytes with no undo'), explains the little-endian byte order, and documents error conditions (address+2 out of bounds, value > 65535). Since no annotations are provided, this disclosure is critical and thorough.

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 organized into clear sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and uses concise language. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, error handling, and return format. No gaps are apparent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining endianness context (low byte at address, high at address+1) and linking the value range to the error condition. This is helpful beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Write an unsigned 16-bit little-endian value'), target resource ('PSP memory'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the bit width and endianness. Sibling references in the usage section confirm this differentiation.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('16-bit cheats and pokes') and when not ('For single bytes use ppsspp_write8; for 32/larger use ppsspp_write32/write_range'), providing direct alternatives.

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