bg3_add_mod_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral facts: the two accepted input formats, the default slot (on top), and that indexing happens immediately. It omits failure modes, duplicate-layer behavior, persistence, and whether a subsequent operation is required.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the positional nuance. Nothing is padded, though the position detail could be folded in more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutating, annotation-free, three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the essentials but leaves gaps around failure behavior and the unexplained 'name' parameter.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It partially does so by explaining 'position' (1-based slot, defaults to top) and by describing what 'path' may point to, but 'name' is left entirely unexplained and no format examples are given.

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 ('Register a mod layer') and immediately clarifies the accepted inputs (unpacked folder with Public/ and Mods/, or a .pak file). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like bg3_remove_mod_layer and bg3_layers.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. whether a refresh/deploy is needed afterward, or what happens on order conflicts). Usage is only inferable from the name and siblings.

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