gorebox_generate_mod

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a mod is written into the Mods directory; it says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether existing mod folders are clobbered, required permissions, or side effects on the game installation.

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, front-loaded with the outcome and then the artifact location. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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 an eight-parameter file-generating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits too much: no success/failure signal, no overwrite semantics, no distinction from sibling generators, and no indication of what the caller should do with the result.

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 100%, so all eight parameters (including is_plugin and safe_mode defaults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, validation, or default detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Generate a GoreBox-compatible Lua mod") and names the two files produced (info.json, main.lua). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names or differentiates itself from the close sibling gorebox_generate_discovery_mod.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description how this differs from gorebox_generate_discovery_mod or the generic scaffold_mod, both of which appear to produce mod scaffolding.

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