set_game_acquisition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: partial mutation, single-record scope, the multi-copy prerequisite, and explicit negative guarantees (never DELETE GAME, never UNLOCK CUSTOM TAGS). It omits auth/permission needs, wait_ms timing behavior, and what happens when a copy cannot be disambiguated.

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: the core action leads, then mutation semantics, then the clear_fields contract and constraints. Telegraphic style is efficient but the terse fragments make the safety clauses feel appended rather than integrated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and safety/scope are covered. However, for a 12-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free mutation tool, the silent parameters (slug, wait_ms, subscription) and the absence of permission/error behavior leave the picture incomplete.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names seven of them (source, amount, date, notes, acquisition, digital_service, additional_cost) and explains clear_fields as a JSON list plus collection_id's condition, but leaves slug, wait_ms and subscription unexplained and gives no format hints for date/amount.

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 pair (set/clear) acting on a specific resource (ACQUISITION INFO on a collection copy), and the 'One UPDATE GAME' clause pins the scope to a single record. An agent can distinguish it from set_game_progress, set_game_rating and the delete tools without opening the schema.

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 concrete usage conditions: partial-update semantics ('only provided fields change'), how to express deletions (clear_fields JSON list with allowed members), and the 'collection_id required when multiple copies exist' prerequisite. It lacks any explicit routing to a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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