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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds real value: the output is a draft config, nothing is published, and a follow-up publish call is required, plus the auth scope needed. It stops short of explaining what happens to existing board data when baseConfig is supplied to change a config.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return/publish flow, then permissions and alternatives. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (its config), the draft-vs-published state, the required follow-up call, the auth scope, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that prompt is your idea and baseConfig is a board config to change, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema (e.g., the 3..500 char bound is schema-only).

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 (designs) and resource (luck board) and immediately distinguishes itself from two siblings by name. An agent can tell this apart from design_skill_game and invent_game without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: use design_skill_game for a skill level, invent_game for a whole new kind of game, and follow this call with publish_luck_board. It also states the required permission ("Create luck games"), covering both when-to-use and prerequisites.

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