Integrate the Gamealia SDK

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance beyond them: the default is a non-mutating dry run returning a unified diff, write:true is the mutating path, the operation is deterministic and idempotent, and it returns file:line TODOs. It could go further on what exactly is overwritten in pre-existing project files, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and prerequisite, then conditions, then return values, then the next step — a logical order with no filler. It is a dense semicolon-chained paragraph, though, and the TODO/next-tool information could be split for faster scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract: a unified diff in dry-run mode and file:line TODOs for hand-placed calls. Combined with the prerequisite, the write switch, and the follow-up tool, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including write's default-false dry-run meaning. The description restates the dry-run vs write:true distinction but adds no new syntax, path rules, or edge-case behavior for `dir` (e.g. what happens if it isn't a recognized project). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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 ("Patches a local project to use the Gamealia SDK") and immediately scopes it relative to siblings: it runs after gamealia_analyze_project and before gamealia_check_integration. It also enumerates the concrete edits (script tag/import, lifecycle adapter, SDK swaps, Unity .jslib / Godot addon), so an agent can distinguish it from analyze/check tools without reading the schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ("after gamealia_analyze_project", "then run gamealia_check_integration") and explains the mode split: dry run by default, write:true to actually edit. The division of labor is spelled out — the tool places the plumbing, while gameplayStart/Stop, happyTime and ad breaks are left as TODOs for the agent.

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