geck_esp_patch_ref_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The GECK-closed note usefully hints this edits the plugin file directly rather than driving the editor UI, but it never states that the operation mutates the on-disk ESP, whether it is destructive/reversible, whether a backup is made (a backup parameter exists), or what happens if GECK actually is running. For a mutating tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single 13-word sentence with the primary action front-loaded ('Patch a placed record with GECK closed') followed by the highest-risk parameter detail. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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?

For a 10-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It omits coordinate/unit context, how the target plugin is resolved (plugin_name default is a test ESP), safety/backup expectations, and the relationship to the GECK workflow. An output schema exists, so return values are excused, but the operational context needed to call this safely is not.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Rotation is in radians; omitted axes are preserved' is genuinely valuable: it prevents radians-vs-degrees errors and clarifies that null/omitted rot_* values mean 'keep current rotation', which the schema's null defaults do not convey. However, x/y/z units, the format of ref_form_id, and the meanings of backup, game_dir, and plugin_name are left entirely undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('patch'), a resource ('placed record'), and a condition ('with GECK closed'), which distinguishes it from siblings like geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar and geck_esp_delete_refs. However, the fact that the tool actually sets position and optional rotation is only implied by the tool name and the rotation note, and 'patch' is left as domain jargon rather than spelled out as 'update position/rotation of a reference'.

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?

'With GECK closed' is a precondition, not guidance about choosing this tool. The description never states when to prefer this over sibling patching tools (geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar, geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar_offset), nor any exclusions. An agent would have to infer the intended use case from a 45-tool sibling list.

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