Fire a LuaStateProxy's cross-state Event

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true/readOnly=false/idempotent=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the rationale that listeners may mutate live behavior, an idempotency qualifier of 'contextual-write', a 'Produces: operation-receipt' result, a 'Verify with: assert-state' follow-up, and a failure-handling pointer. This is rich disclosure a caller needs before mutating live state.

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 fact ('WRITES LIVE GAME STATE') and uses compact labeled segments that are easy to scan. However, the mutation warning is repeated ('WRITES LIVE GAME STATE' and 'Safety: MUTATING; writes live game/client state') and the signature line duplicates a fully-covered schema, adding redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions (active-client, confirm, approval), safety profile, the produced operation-receipt, a verification step, and a failure fallback to tool-schema. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including the enum and the arguments maxItems/typed-argument structure) are fully documented in the schema. The description's signature line merely restates the parameter names without adding semantic meaning 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: firing a LuaStateProxy's cross-state Event, and specifies it resolves current/game/expression state before invoking state.Event:Fire with typed arguments. The explicit mention of LuaStateProxy/cross-state lets an agent distinguish it from sibling firing tools like fire-connection, fire-signal, and fire-remote.

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 concrete preconditions: confirm=true is required, plus 'Requires: active-client, explicit-mutation-approval' and a Phase=act label. It clearly states the context in which this runs, though it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing to inference.

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