Queue code to run after the next teleport (sUNC queueonteleport)

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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses the exact error payload when queueonteleport is missing, the return shape ({ queued } or { error }), the pcall/type-guard behavior, the 'contextual-write' idempotency class, and an explicit MUTATING safety warning that it writes live game/client state. Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete failure modes and preconditions.

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 mutation warning and the core behavior, then layers requirements and failure handling efficiently. The trailing metadata block (Phase/cost/idempotency/Produces/Verify) and the generic 'On failure: inspect tool-schema' line are slightly boilerplate-heavy, keeping it just under top marks.

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 contract itself ({ queued } or { error }), plus preconditions, error semantics, and safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this mutation correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents code, threadContext, and timeoutMs with meaningful descriptions. The description restates the signature and optionality but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('queues a chunk of Luau source via queueonteleport(code) so it runs automatically after the NEXT teleport completes, in the destination place') and explains the mechanism distinguishing it from the sibling clear-queue-on-teleport. An agent can immediately tell what this does and its exact effect.

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 a clear scenario ('This is how scripts survive a Roblox teleport') that implies when to use it, and the requirement list (requires queueonteleport, active-client, explicit-mutation-approval) provides actionable preconditions. However, it never explicitly contrasts with adjacent executors like execute/run-luau or the sibling clear-queue-on-teleport, so routing is left partly to inference.

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