bg3_test_stage

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 real behavioral traits — that script cases are cast immediately, that initiative is host-first, and that a safety watch and event recorder run. It says nothing about side effects on game state, permission requirements, or failure behavior, so it is only partially transparent for a mutating setup tool.

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 the setup checklist. Dense domain jargon but no wasted filler; the trailing pointer to bg3_test_verify earns its place.

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, and the description sketches the staging workflow adequately. But for a complex mutation tool with three undocumented parameters and an unexplained 'layer'/'layers' distinction, the description leaves an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 all three parameters (layer, layers, case_id) are bare titles. The description never explains what 'layer'/'layers' select or how case_id maps to a case, and the only parameter-like reference (mode) is not in the schema at all. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 — 'Set up one test case in the running game' — and enumerates the setup facets (preconditions, spawns, HP/status, initiative, recorder). It partially routes to a sibling by naming bg3_test_verify as the follow-up, but does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours like bg3_test_run, bg3_test_plan, or bg3_test_script.

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 a workflow: stage the case, the user acts, then finish with bg3_test_verify. That is useful sequencing. However, it offers no when-not guidance versus the many other bg3_test_* tools and references mode="script", a concept absent from the input schema, which muddies rather than clarifies usage.

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