Trigger a ClickDetector

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it bypasses MaxActivationDistance and line-of-sight, fires the MouseClick signal, guards existence/type, wraps the fire in pcall, warns that effects may replicate to the server, and states the return shape ({ Path, ok } or { error }). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loads the critical warning ('WRITES LIVE GAME STATE') and keeps the causal explanation tight. It is somewhat long and partially redundant (signature line repeats schema fields; the 'On failure: inspect tool-schema' boilerplate is generic), but every core sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract, the mutation risk, the replication caveat, and the preconditions (active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval). For a destructive, side-effecting tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, distance (default 0, studs, gating semantics), and threadContext. The description restates the signature and reinforces that the call is a mutation but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resolve a Luau expression to a ClickDetector and trigger it via the executor's fireclickdetector.' It clearly distinguishes itself from neighbors like fire-signal, click-button, and fire-proximity-prompt by naming the exact mechanism (MouseClick signal) and effect (server/client logic bound to the detector runs).

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 context: 'Use it to drive click-gated game flow during automation/testing,' and describes conditions it bypasses (MaxActivationDistance, line-of-sight). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. click-button for GUI, fire-proximity-prompt) or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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