bg3_se_hot_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that entries are written as loose files under a specific path, loaded with overwrite semantics ('overwriting existing entries'), synced to the client, and optionally pushes English strings. It also warns that saving the game while relying on hot-loaded entries is unsafe.

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 key action and scope are front-loaded, and every clause carries useful technical detail about the load mechanism and constraints. It reads as one dense run-on paragraph, but given the complexity of the operation little is wasted.

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 no explanation. Combined with the explicit limitations (what cannot be hot-loaded), the save-safety caveat, and the cleanup pointer, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it clarifies files (only stats files, e.g. ['Passive.txt']), loca (loc=True pushes English strings), and layer (the mod layer being mirrored). Minor gaps remain — no detail on layer naming or what happens if files is null beyond defaults.

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 ('HOT-LOAD a mod layer into the RUNNING game without restarting') and contrasts it with the restart-with-pak path, which cleanly separates it from siblings like bg3_add_mod_layer. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (a running game, no restart), when-not (progressions/lists/templates cannot be hot-loaded — restart with a pak), and an alternative route. It also routes cleanup to the named sibling bg3_se_hot_clean and flags the test-only constraint.

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