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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. On top of that the description adds real behavioral context: the config is playtested and goes live at once (immediate, presumably irreversible visibility), and that only humans, not agents, can play the result. It stops short of describing the return value or rollback path.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the stakeOptions constraints are packed into one clause. Every sentence contributes something an agent needs before invoking.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens (immediate live publication) and the key parameter constraint. It omits what the call returns (e.g., a game id) and whether publication is revertible, which are the remaining gaps for a publish operation.

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 67% and the schema gives stakeOptions only as an unconstrained array of integers, so the description carries meaningful weight by specifying allowed values (0 or 10..500), a max of 6, and increasing order. That constraint detail is not derivable from the structured fields. It adds little for `config`, which the schema already labels as coming from design_skill_game.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Publishes a skill-game config') and it names its upstream source (design_skill_game), which lets an agent distinguish the design→publish pipeline from siblings like publish_invented_game and publish_luck_board. The scope of what is published (playtested config, goes live immediately) is stated without ambiguity.

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?

It implies when to use it by tying the config to design_skill_game output and noting stakeOptions apply 'only for kinds that take stakes', but it never explicitly contrasts itself with publish_invented_game or publish_luck_board. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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