Set completion status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the prerequisite and the exact allowed statuses, going beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first sentence carries the main purpose and status options; the second adds the essential precondition. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, status values, and a precondition. It doesn't explicitly contrast with 'set_game_status', but the played-shelf requirement and the phrase 'how you finished' make the distinction clear enough. A brief mention of when not to use could push it to a 5.

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?

The schema describes only the 'game' parameter, leaving 'status' with just an enum. The description compensates by listing all status values in prose and linking them to the intended meaning, while also adding a constraint on the game parameter (must be on played shelf). This adds meaning beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb-resource pair ('Set how you finished a played game') and enumerates all valid statuses. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_game_status' by focusing on completion sub-statuses and the played-shelf precondition.

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 clearly states the prerequisite ('The game must already be on your played shelf'), implying when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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