set_game_rating

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires login'), partial-update semantics ('Empty sub-fields stay unchanged'), the clear/remove behavior, and the 1-10 value range. Missing are rate-limit or side-effect/reversibility notes, but this is solid disclosure for an unannotated mutator.

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?

Five terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the mode/behavior details. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 no explanation, and the safety/auth profile is covered. Still, for a 9-parameter tool the description leaves wait_ms and the slug/game-identification mechanism undocumented, and the sub-field value encoding ambiguous.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains score (1-10), clear (true removes), and that empty sub-fields are left unchanged, which implicitly covers sound/story/visual/gameplay/playability. However slug and wait_ms remain wholly unexplained, and the sub-field value format is never specified.

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 or clear'), the exact resource ('IB ratings on the collection game page'), and disambiguating scope ('per IGDB game, not per copy'). That scope note alone separates it from per-copy siblings like add_game_platform_copy and set_game_acquisition, and the rating resource separates it from set_game_progress.

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 explains the two internal modes (set vs. clear=true) but gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool over sibling raters/progress setters, and no prerequisites beyond login. An agent gets no routing help between this and set_game_progress or the play-record tools.

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