dd2_vortex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses auto-starting Vortex, refusing switches while DD2 is running, creating a missing profile from <project>/dd2mod.json, enabling REFramework, and deploying. It doesn't mention cost/latency or the blast radius of the deploy step, which keeps it off a 5.

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 global constraint and action list are front-loaded, and the parenthetical format packs a lot of information into a short space. The action block is somewhat run-on and requires careful parsing, which is a minor structural weakness.

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 explained, and the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and per-action inputs for a stateful tool with three undocumented parameters. A note on whether the deploy step touches game files would close the remaining gap.

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 explains that 'profile' is a name used with 'switch' and 'project' is a mod project directory read from <project>/dd2mod.json. The action parameter's valid values are enumerated but not typed or formally declared, leaving some ambiguity about invalid input handling.

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 names a specific verb+resource (managing Vortex profiles for DD2) and enumerates each action with its distinct effect, so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It stops short of contrasting itself with overlapping siblings such as dd2_deploy or dd2_status.

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?

Each action carries its own usage context ('switch' needs a profile name, 'dev'/'release' need a project dir, 'play' restores the pre-switch profile), and the constraint 'refuses switches while DD2 runs' is an explicit when-not condition. It never names an alternative sibling tool to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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