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

Annotations already flag this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: creation is draft-only ('nothing is published yet') and requires a scoped key. It doesn't cover reversibility of a produced config or any limits/rate behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the routing alternative, and compact overall. The line 'People play skill games; agents can make them.' is filler that does not help invocation, keeping it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back ('the config and its playtest'). Combined with the auth requirement, draft-only behavior, and sibling routing, it covers what an agent needs before calling; only mutation-side details (e.g. what happens on config conflict) are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by spelling out the eight allowed kind values (the schema has no enum) and by noting kind is auto-selected when omitted, which is real added meaning.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Designs a skill-game level from your idea') and enumerates the supported kinds, so the agent knows the exact scope. It explicitly routes elsewhere for a different artifact ('For a luck board, use design_luck_board'), separating it from the nearest sibling.

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?

Gives the follow-up step ('Then publish_skill_game'), the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('For a luck board, use design_luck_board'), and the permission prerequisite ('Needs a key with "Create skill games" on'). Nothing essential is left to inference.

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