Toggle a metatable's read-only flag (MUTATES live state)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond them: it writes the live runtime rather than a copy, requires confirm=true or refuses, returns {Target, ReadOnly, ok} or {error}, and carries crash/anticheat consequences. The one blemish is that its own metadata line claims 'idempotency=idempotent-write' while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false — an internal inconsistency that keeps this from a 5.

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?

The critical warning ('WRITES LIVE GAME STATE. DANGER') is correctly front-loaded and the workflow paragraph earns its place, but the tail is appended machine metadata ('Phase: act; cost=medium; ... Requires: ... Capabilities: ... Produces: ... Verify with: ... On failure: inspect tool-schema...') that pads the definition without helping selection or invocation.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool this is complete: it covers purpose, required approval, prerequisites, failure behavior, verification path (assert-state), and even the return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know what to do afterward.

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 every parameter (confirm, readonly, targetPath, threadContext) is already fully documented in the schema, including the confirm safety gate and the Luau-expression evaluation of targetPath. The description restates the signature and the confirm rule but adds no semantics the schema lacks, 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+resource+mechanism: 'Resolve a Luau expression to a metatable (usually getrawmetatable(obj)) and flip its read-only flag via setreadonly.' It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings (get-metatable, is-readonly, set-rawmetatable) by naming the exact target form and the live-state mutation, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use context and workflow: unlock with readonly=false to edit a metamethod or run hook-metamethod, then re-lock with readonly=true, and it warns that leaving a core metatable writable is an anticheat tripwire. It also lists prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval). It stops short of explicit 'use X instead of this' routing to siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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