Trigger a ProximityPrompt

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

Annotations declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: which checks are bypassed, that the Triggered signal fires and server logic may run, that guards and a pcall wrap the call, and that the effect may replicate to the server. Return shape is also disclosed.

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-loaded with the critical 'WRITES LIVE GAME STATE' warning, and the core mechanics follow efficiently. However, the trailing metadata block (Phase, cost, idempotency, Capabilities, Produces, Requires, Verify, On failure) is boilerplate that partially duplicates the annotations and warning.

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 carries the return format ({ Path, ok } or { error }), failure guidance, guard behavior, and the mutation warning. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the signature { path, threadContext } but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (trigger/fire) and resource (ProximityPrompt) with concrete semantics: 'exactly as if the local player walked up and held the prompt's key to completion.' This distinguishes it from siblings like fire-signal, fire-connection, fire-remote, and fire-click-detector, which fire different object types.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use it to drive interaction-gated game flow during automation/testing,' and clarifies the shortcut (bypasses distance/hold/los/Enabled checks). It lacks explicit naming of an alternative sibling tool for the same task, but the context of use is unambiguous.

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