rba_set_autorun

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Configure' but does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, whether it overwrites existing autorun settings, whether it persists across sessions, or how it affects currently connected clients. The schema defaults (e.g., enabled=false) hint at behavior but are not explained in the description. This leaves the agent unaware of side effects and prerequisites.

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 one concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action word and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. This is an example of efficient, focused writing.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level purpose. It lacks critical contextual information such as how parameters interact, whether autorun configuration applies to future or current connections, and what the tool returns. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It mentions 'profile/file execution' which loosely maps to the profile and files properties, but it does not explain modes (send/eval), the target selector, the enabled flag, or the timeoutMs behavior. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the agent has to guess at parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Configure optional profile/file execution that runs automatically when a Roblox client connects.' It identifies the verb (configure), the resource (profile/file execution), and the trigger condition (when a Roblox client connects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_get_autorun (which retrieves configuration) and immediate-execution tools like rba_execute_file.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention rba_get_autorun for reading the current configuration, nor does it exclude immediate-execution tools like rba_run_script_profile or rba_send_lua. Usage context must be inferred solely from the tool name and sibling list, which is poor guidance.

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