set_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the goal can be placed 'on edge/wall', which adds some context about placement constraints. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this overwrites existing goals, requires specific permissions, affects game state validation, or has any side effects on other level elements.

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 extremely concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word contributes meaningful information, with zero wasted text or redundancy. The parenthetical adds useful constraint information efficiently.

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 tool that modifies game/level state (implied by 'Set'), the description is insufficient given no annotations and no output schema. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the goal, whether there are validation rules, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with other level elements. The context of sibling tools suggests this is part of a level editor system, but the description doesn't leverage that 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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters ('x' and 'y') clearly documented as coordinates in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value regarding coordinate systems, units, or constraints.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('goal position'), with additional context about placement options ('can be on edge/wall'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'set_start' by focusing on the goal, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other positioning tools like 'place_tile' or 'move_tile'.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships with other tools like 'set_start' for player positioning or 'place_tile' for general tile placement.

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