add_game_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the search order (DLC, then PACK/ADDON, EDITIONS, extras widgets), that one UPDATE GAME persists changes, that it never deletes, and which fields it does not touch. Auth requirements and side-effect surface beyond the listed exclusions are not covered, keeping it from 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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the core action before constraints. It is somewhat run-on with many short clauses, but each sentence contributes constraint or behavior information rather than 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 complex browser-driven mutation tool, it covers ordering, persistence, and exclusions, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The main gap is that several parameters remain undocumented for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `names` (a JSON array of Steam/IB titles) and that `platform`/`digital` are ignored, but says nothing about `parent_slug`, `collection_id`, or `wait_ms`, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource: adding owned extras (DLC/packs) to a parent collection game. It is clear what operation it performs and even names the UI surface ('parent collection edit form'). Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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 constraints ('Does not use /games/add for DLC/packs', 'Does not change edition, play status...') but never states when to choose this over siblings like add_game_platform_copy or set_game_acquisition. Usage is only implied via the excluded behaviors.

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