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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: the offer-based flow, the acceptance requirement, the owner-only restriction, and the limit of 5 co-GMs. These are essential for the agent to understand the tool's side effects and constraints.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, a critical caveat, and two constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple offer-sending tool, the description covers all behavioral requirements: the offer mechanism, the need for acceptance, the owner-only rule, and the cap. An output schema exists, so return value details are not the description's responsibility. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate. The mention of 'user' and 'campaign' aligns with the schema but adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Send a user an assistant GM (co-GM) offer for a campaign,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does NOT add immediately, which prevents confusion with any direct-add interpretation.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: it clarifies that the target must accept the offer, so it is not for immediate addition. It also specifies an owner-only precondition and a maximum cap of 5 co-GMs, giving clear conditions for when this tool is appropriate.

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