adjust_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what is NOT destroyed (tile length and rhythm preserved), which is meaningful for a regeneration tool, but it does not state whether the .adofai file is overwritten in place, whether a backup is made, or any permission/auth requirements.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact Args block; there is no padding. Slight terseness in entries like '기준 카메라 줌' costs it a perfect score but nothing is wasted.

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?

Parameters are well covered, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits file-write/overwrite behavior and any failure or safety context. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it delivers: level_path is clarified as an .adofai absolute path, style enumerates valid values (showcase/clean/party) that the schema lacks, and zoom/enable_flash are explained. This substantially compensates for the coverage gap, though units/defaults are still implicit.

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 (regenerate effects/visuals) and a distinguishing scope constraint (preserves tile length and rhythm), which separates it from the sibling generate_full_map. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the 'only effects' scoping makes the boundary inferable.

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 '만' (only) qualifier and the preservation clause imply when to use it: when effects must change but the chart layout/rhythm must stay intact. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given, so routing is left to inference.

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