Turniermeister — Tournament Engine

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains the claim-link flow, idempotencyKey retry semantics, structured validation errors, quota timing, and the instruction not to invent participant names. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 purpose-driven and front-loaded, starting with the core action and claim-link outcome before moving into parameter rules. Each bullet carries essential operational detail without fluff, and the layout makes it easy for an agent to scan and apply.

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 tool with 8 params, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers everything needed: the return value (claim link) and how to relay it, error handling, idempotency behavior, quotas, and rules about participant and template values. No critical call-time information is missing.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: the requirements/ exclusivity rule between teamCount and participants, the explicit user-supplied condition for participants, the idempotencyKey uniqueness contract, and the 'omit rather than guess' templateKey rule. This goes well beyond the schema and materially improves correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb, resource, and key outcome: it prepares a tournament and returns a claim link. It also gives concrete use examples (sports, club night, game night, brackets) and clearly differentiates the tool's behavior, so an agent knows exactly what it is for.

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 states when to call this tool ('Call this tool whenever a user wants to plan or create a tournament') and adds explicit rules about when to omit participants, when to require teamCount, and how to handle templateKey. Even without siblings, it provides unambiguous selection and invocation guidance.

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