editor_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the blocking wait for editor reload, the side effect 'Stops play mode first', the fact the editor is untouched on an early check failure, the structured error shape (file, line, column, code), and the three outcome classes reported via Check. These are the exact traits an agent needs before invoking a disruptive operation.

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 core action and the stop-play-mode warning are front-loaded and every sentence adds information. It is dense and slightly garbled in one spot ('its outcome is reloaded, unchanged or failed'), which costs a little readability without wasting space.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the whole behavioral story: prerequisites, side effects, sequencing, failure modes, and where error detail surfaces. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline is 4 by rule. The description's references to compiler arguments and BuildErrors fields are descriptive context, not parameter explanation.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Compiles the project's scripts') plus a precise completion condition ('returns when the editor has reloaded and settled'). It then distinguishes the two internal phases, so an agent can tell it apart from the pure-check siblings build_check_scripts and build_compile_scripts.

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 clear operating context: the check runs outside the editor first, and only a clean check proceeds to the editor compile that reloads the editor. It never explicitly routes the agent among the near-identical siblings (build_check_scripts, build_compile_scripts, build_generate_projects), so the choice still requires inference.

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