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

Annotations already declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is neither idempotent nor destructive. The description adds real value beyond that: it creates a visible Games tab entry, requires stopping for human approval, forbids embedding game code, and specifies the optimistic-concurrency parameters for revisions. It does not cover permissions or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the essential 'first step' framing and the stop-for-approval instruction. It is dense and the markdown content requirements form a long clause, but each sentence carries actionable information (required headings, concurrency fields, no code, fresh approval).

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the workflow, the artifact produced, the approval gate, and the concurrency contract an agent needs. It is let down only by the unexplained ancillary parameters (prompt, worldId, workspaceId), which no other structured field documents.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains proposalMarkdown in depth (required headings, content, no code) and mentions expectedVersionId/expectedProposalRevision, and implies gameId for revisions, but leaves workspaceId, title, description, prompt, and worldId entirely unexplained.

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 (save an experience game proposal) and pins down its position in the workflow as the FIRST step for creating or revising a game. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like save_experience_game, save_proposal, and update_proposal by describing the proposal+Games-tab artifact and the approval gate.

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 says to STOP for human approval and that revisions require reading the existing game first and passing expectedVersionId/expectedProposalRevision, plus that a revised proposal always needs fresh approval. This gives strong when-to-use context, though it never names the sibling tools (get_experience_game, save_experience_game, update_proposal) an agent should consider instead.

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