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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description explains exactly what that means: it 'replaces any answer they gave before.' It also discloses the overflow behavior that 'in' returns a waitlist placement when the game is full and that the result reports this, plus the signed-in-user-only scope constraint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope restriction, then the destructive/waitlist caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; there is no 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 two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, replacement semantics, and waitlist outcome. It stops short of stating eligibility/prerequisite conditions (must be a squad member, answer window) before the call will succeed.

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 100% and the enum values are self-explanatory, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's waitlist note adds behavioral meaning to the 'in' value but nothing about squadId beyond the schema's 'from list_squads' hint.

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 and resource ('Say whether the user is in, maybe or out for a squad's next game') and no sibling tool performs this action, so an agent can distinguish it immediately. The three allowed answers are named inline, matching the enum.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage: it answers only for the signed-in user, never another player, and notes there is no other-player tool because each player answers from the squad's page. That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not say what prerequisite state (e.g. squad membership, game not yet played) must hold.

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