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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: STOP for human approval, revised proposals always need fresh approval, automatic version pinning only if the world version is still current, and the rule that no game code should be included. These are non-obvious workflow consequences an agent must 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?

Front-loads the core action and sequence first, then layers constraints. Dense but every sentence carries operative information; only minor tightening would help.

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?

Covers the multi-step workflow, versioning prerequisites, and worldstream attachment path for a 10-param tool with a nested object and no output schema. A few parameters (workspaceId, prompt, description) remain undocumented, leaving small gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the burden, and it explains proposalMarkdown's required headings/content, expectedVersionId/expectedProposalRevision for existing games, and the nested worldExperienceTarget fields (liveWorldId, inputBindingId, expectedVersionId). It leaves workspaceId, prompt, and description unexplained, so it's not fully compensating.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (save a game proposal document + Games tab entry) and states its role as the FIRST step for creating or revising a game. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_experience_game, save_proposal, and update_proposal.

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 clear conditions: it's the first step for a new game, requires reading first and passing expectedVersionId/expectedProposalRevision for existing games, and requires worldExperienceTarget for Worldstream attachments. It doesn't name the specific sibling tools to use in each branch, but the when-to-use contexts are explicit.

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