Interact with world object

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructiveHint=true, covering side-effect risk. The description adds the context 'authorized', indicating a precondition/permission requirement. This is useful, but it does not disclose consequences of triggering (e.g., in-game state changes) beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

The tool is a potentially destructive trigger with no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions. The description gives the core trigger behavior but omits important context such as how to obtain a valid path (e.g., via get_tree), what happens on success/failure, or how clientId factors in. However, annotations cover the safety profile, so it is minimally adequate for simple invocation but not fully complete.

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 low at 33%, so the tool description must compensate. 'By path' clarifies that the path parameter is a locator, and the three component types echo the kind enum, but the 'auto' default and clientId parameter are not addressed. The description adds limited meaning beyond the schema and fails to fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Trigger' and names precise resources (ProximityPrompt, ClickDetector, TouchTransmitter) with a clear locator ('by path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like click_ui (UI elements) and teleport, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: use when you need to trigger these specific world-object interaction components. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as click_ui or execute_luau. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, so it stops at implied usage.

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