set_play_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose real domain behavior — how payload fields map per category type (keyValue = name+value, checkbox = name, progress = name+value as progress_earned). It stays silent on whether existing rows are overwritten, what row_index/collection_id do, and why wait_ms 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?

Short and front-loaded with the primary operation first. However, the second sentence ('action is add or update') restates what the first sentence and the schema default already say, and the final clause is a dense run-on that trades clarity for brevity.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin, omitting prerequisites, row-addressing semantics (row_index/collection_id), and the meaning of wait_ms. Return values are covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies name/value/action semantics but leaves slug, category, row_index, collection_id, and wait_ms entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb+resource: add or update a Play Records row within a category on a game. It is distinguishable from set_play_record_category, though it never names that sibling or explains the boundary explicitly.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (auth, game context, slug acquisition), and no routing between this tool and siblings like set_play_record_category, list_play_records, or remove_play_record. The only implicit usage signal is that 'action is add or update'.

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