geck_write_load_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does reveal that the tool validates plugin names and rewrites the load order, which is useful. But it does not disclose whether a backup is automatically created, how destructive the rewrite is, what happens with unlisted plugins, or any failure/rollback behavior.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word 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?

The output schema may cover return values, but this is a mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation in the description. The 'backup' and 'game_dir' parameters especially need clarification for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, and prerequisite/rollback context is missing.

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. The phrase 'plugin names' loosely maps to the 'plugins' parameter, but the 'backup' and 'game_dir' parameters are entirely unexplained. No format, ordering, or filename conventions are given for the plugin list.

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 ('Rewrite'), a specific resource ('Fallout 3 plugins.txt load order'), and an additional behavior ('after validating plugin names'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/backup/list tools and makes the tool's function immediately obvious.

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 phrase 'after validating plugin names' implies a prerequisite and gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like geck_read_load_order or geck_backup_plugin, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions for safe use.

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