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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive create, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior (macro substitution such as {offer_url} in URLs, and that uploaded landings cannot be created through this API), but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or whether repeated calls create duplicates.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then branches into the two variants with parenthetical details. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries a usable constraint.

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 17-parameter mutating tool with nested objects, 3 enums, and no output schema, the description covers the critical creation paths and the game_settings key constraint. It stops short of covering the large block of optional behavioral flags, and gives no hint about what the call returns (e.g., the new landing id).

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?

Adds meaning the schema does not carry: conditional required fields per type (url for URL landings, game_pack_id for game landings despite only name being globally required) and the origin of game_settings keys. With 59% schema coverage and 17 parameters, many optional fields (tags, notes, status, group_id, pwa_name, collect_push, heatmap_enabled, push_activation) remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('Create a landing') and immediately decomposes it into its two API-reachable variants (URL-type and type=game), which is well beyond what the name alone conveys. It also rules out a third variant ('uploaded landings ... panel-only'), though 'uploaded' has no corresponding value in the type enum, which slightly muddies the mapping between prose and schema.

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?

Gives per-mode conditions ('name and url required' vs 'name and game_pack_id required') and a prerequisite pointer to list_game_packs for the allowed game_settings keys. It does not contrast itself with update_landing or list_landings/get_landing, so an agent gets creation-mode guidance but no explicit alternative routing.

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