create_basic_castle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions parameters like 'replace_existing' and 'dry_run' but does not explain their implications (e.g., whether the tool overwrites existing actors or requires specific permissions). The behavioral impact is unclear.

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 description is a single block listing parameters. It efficiently states the purpose but lacks clear structuring (e.g., bullet points or sections). It is adequate but not optimally concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention prerequisites, level context, or how the tool fits with siblings like 'reset_basic_castle'. The parameter details are helpful but insufficient for full context.

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 0% (only 'kwargs' with no description), so the description compensates by listing supported sub-parameters (prefix, origin, stone_color, etc.). However, it does not specify the exact format for 'kwargs' (e.g., JSON object or key=value pairs), which limits clarity.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a sample castle workflow from primitive shapes.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'reset_basic_castle' or 'verify_basic_castle'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'spawn_actor_from_blueprint' or 'modify_actor'. No explicit usage context or exclusions are given.

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