delete_game_copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is destructive, requires confirm=true, and — critically — warns that deleting the last remaining copy removes the game from the collection. It omits any mention of permissions, reversibility, or rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the required-parameter constraints and the destructive caveat come early. The phrasing is telegraphic but every clause carries information.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, the description does cover the confirm gate and the last-copy side effect, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The unexplained 'slug' parameter and absent permission/reversibility guidance leave a real gap.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents collection_id ('always required') and confirm ('=true required'), but the required 'slug' parameter is never mentioned at all and 'wait_ms' is unexplained, leaving two parameters 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 ('Delete a saved collection copy') and clarifies the exact UI action used ('via DELETE GAME'), implicitly separating it from the draft/unsaved variants. It does not explicitly differentiate from a sibling like delete_game_review, but the mechanism is unambiguous.

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?

It gives implicit when-not guidance by stating what it does NOT click (DELETE DRAFT, DELETE GAME FOR unsaved extra platforms), which helps scope the action. However, it never names an alternative tool or states in which situations an agent should prefer another operation over this one.

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