新增常載區域

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, but do not explain the persistent world behavior. The description adds that the area remains loaded and its mechanisms continue functioning after player departure, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and effect, then add the key use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant detail.

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 description gives the purpose and effect but omits parameter semantics and any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., area limits, persistence behavior once unloaded). The output schema exists and annotations help, so the gaps are moderate; an agent could probably call it correctly by using the schema structure, but not from the description alone.

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% for the top-level parameters, and the description provides no parameter-specific guidance (what 'from'/'to' represent, how 'name' is used, or coordinate mode implications). The agent must infer from the names and nested schema, and the description does not compensate for the missing coverage.

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 a specific action and resource: '把一塊區域設為常載' (set an area as always-loaded). It further explains the functional effect (mechanisms keep running after players leave) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by tying it to remote autonomous work.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Agent 要在遠處自動工作時需要這個' (the agent needs this when working automatically at a distance). It does not provide exclusions or name alternatives, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar.

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