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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful auth context with 'Requires mcp:write,' but it does not explain what the destructive hint means in practice or what side effects creation has.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. The phrase 'using the same rules as the site' is vague, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It covers purpose and write permission, but leaves parameter usage, required combinations, and behavioral consequences largely unexplained.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only loosely hints at player seats via 'named player seats' and never explains any parameter names, formats, defaults, or valid combinations such as guestNames, opponentIds, casual, manual, or missionPackId.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Creates a battle,' and adds that it uses named player seats. This distinguishes it from read/list siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like save_roster or submit_battle_action.

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 only usage-related detail is the prerequisite 'Requires mcp:write.' There is no guidance on when to use create_battle versus alternatives such as simulate_combat or submit_battle_action, nor any exclusions or preconditions beyond the write scope.

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