geck_cell_set_world_space

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a UI mutation ('Set ... combo box') but does not disclose side effects, requirements such as the Cell View being open, whether this changes the active cell, or any potential failure modes.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, target, and illustrative examples all appear in the first line, and every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and the UI-automation nature of this tool, the description is too thin. It does not explain prerequisites, valid world-space values, backend semantics, or what happens after the combo box is set, leaving an agent to guess critical invocation details.

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. It adds meaning to 'world_space' through examples, but 'backend' is left completely unexplained, and the expected string format for world_space is not defined beyond two examples.

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 ('Set'), a specific resource ('Cell View's world-space combo box'), and gives concrete examples ('Interiors or Wasteland'). This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like geck_cell_select or geck_cell_go_to_exterior.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or workflow context. The examples imply the kind of values, but there is no explicit guidance about when this action is appropriate or what state the GECK UI must be in.

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