Set a remote's ignore state

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

The description explicitly states 'idempotency=idempotent-write', but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. These directly conflict, leaving an agent unsure whether repeating the call is safe. Despite the otherwise rich context (reversibility, engine-specific suppression semantics), the explicit contradiction with structured metadata forces a 1.

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') before mechanics, and the sentences are mostly information-dense. The duplicated signature block and metadata line ('Phase/cost/produces') are somewhat boilerplate but not wasteful enough to hurt much.

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 covers produces ('structured-result'), verification, and preconditions, giving an agent enough to invoke safely. The idempotency conflict and the absence of guidance on the sibling block-remote are the remaining gaps.

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% and two parameters have enums with defaults, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The 'Signature' line merely restates names and types, adding little beyond the schema. 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+resource+scope: 'Reversibly ignores captures for an observed remoteId or Luau remotePath in the selected engine/direction.' It also contrasts with blocking behavior ('Calls continue executing'), which lets an agent separate it from siblings like block-remote and monitor-remote without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given ('Requires: active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval'), plus a verification path ('Verify with: assert-state') and a fallback ('On failure: inspect tool-schema'). It does not name the alternative tool to use instead (e.g., block-remote), so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing.

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