set_par

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 states this sets a par value but doesn't explain what happens after setting (e.g., whether it validates against current level state, affects difficulty calculations, or requires saving). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by immediately clarifying what 'par' represents in this context.

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, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'par' means in this game context, how it relates to level design, what validation occurs, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'analyze_difficulty' and 'solve_level', more context about this tool's role would be helpful.

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 the single parameter 'par' fully documented in the schema as 'Par move count (must be positive integer)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicit par') and the target ('for the current draft'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'set_par_to_shortest' which appears to serve a similar purpose, missing an opportunity for clear distinction.

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 like 'set_par_to_shortest' or other parameter-setting tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded draft) or typical scenarios for setting a custom par value.

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