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

Annotations establish that this is a mutating, destructive, non-read-only tool, and the description adds substantial side-effect detail beyond that: a published game does not change immediately, the new version replaces any version already waiting in the waiting room, an unpublished game gets the new files at once, and a human must record the clip. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 long but appropriately dense: the main operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences each add critical workflow, side-effect, or exclusion information. The natural-language examples are compact and help an agent recognize user intent. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 complex mutation with no output schema, the description covers almost everything an agent needs: inputs, when changes become visible, the waiting-room replacement behavior, the zmiana response field, the release workflow, and the human-only clip recording. The main gap is that it never crisply states the one-of-upload_id/zip_url requirement or the behavior if both are supplied, which is a small but real omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does reinforce the file-vs-url source choice by mentioning klyo_upload_package and 'public zip_url', but it mostly restates the schema fields. It does not explicitly state that exactly one of upload_id or zip_url should be supplied or what should happen if both are provided, so it adds only moderate value beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Upload a NEW VERSION of a game that is already on the account (`slug`)' and then names the two allowed package sources. It clearly differentiates this action from related siblings by stating the game 'keeps its address, name, description, scores and hearts; only the files change', which is not a tautology.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Do not create a second game to ship a fix: that splits players and records between two addresses.' It also explains the staged workflow, names klyo_release_version as the alternative release path, and notes when upload_id is preferred over zip_url. An agent gets clear decision rules rather than having to infer them.

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