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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it saves the template as a reusable artifact, puts the game live in the feed, and warns that checks rerun with up to a minute of latency. Missing auth/permission requirements, but the side-effect and latency disclosures are real value.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then side effects, then input constraints. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 non-idempotent publishing mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: prerequisite state, side effects, latency, and stakeOptions rules. It does not state what is returned or any permission requirements, leaving a modest gap.

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 75%, so baseline is around 3, and the description compensates by adding hard validation semantics for stakeOptions (allowed values 0 or 10..1000, max 6, increasing order) that appear nowhere in the schema. It also explains template vs templateId trade-off context, though the 'name' parameter gets no elaboration.

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 ('publishes') and resource ('invented game') and pins the precondition ('from a ready invent_status template'). This clearly separates it from publishing sibling tools like publish_luck_board and publish_skill_game, and from invent_game/invent_status which precede it.

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 phrase 'from a ready invent_status template' tells the agent the prerequisite state (you must have run invent_status first), and the stakeOptions sentence gives concrete input rules for a specific case. However, it stops short of naming alternative tools or explicitly stating when NOT to use this (e.g., use publish_skill_game for skill games).

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