game_ui_theme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the action. It does not clarify whether overrides persist, how they merge with an existing theme, error behavior for non-Control nodes, or whether this is a runtime-only change.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words — 'Apply theme overrides to a Control node' conveys the core action immediately. Any brevity trade-off in behavioral depth is accounted for in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, situated in a large sibling family of UI/theme tools, the one-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine runtime vs editor scope, alternatives, or expected effects, even though the two parameters are fully covered by the schema.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the description adds nothing beyond what the schema states. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the overrides structure {colors, constants, fontSizes} is adequately described there.

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 identifies a specific action — applying theme overrides to a Control node — with a clear verb and resource target, distinguishing it from siblings like game_ui_control and manage_theme_resource. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of related UI/theme tools such as game_ui_control, manage_theme_resource, or game_get_ui. Usage context is only implied by the action itself, with no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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