Hot-reload the map the game is standing on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the player stays in place, event interpreters restart from the top, database tables are not re-read, the call blocks until the reloaded map is live, and it does not require Allow Eval. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect. Every sentence adds distinct value: the action and scope, the workflow context and alternative, and the caveats (what changes propagate, what doesn't, and the Eval requirement). No waste.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what changes, what doesn't, the blocking behavior, and the prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in the right sequence.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter semantics needed. The description doesn't waste space on parameters because there are none.

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 ('re-read the current map file and rebuild itself') and enumerates exactly what is affected: tiles, autotiles, events and map size. Distinguishes itself from siblings by naming set_tiles, place_event, and set_event_page as the tools that precede it.

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?

Explicitly defines the workflow context ('author-then-look loop') and when to call it versus alternatives ('call it instead of booting a new game and transferring'). Also specifies when NOT to use it: database table changes (System, Actors, Items, Tilesets) require a new game.

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