pws_award_championship

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds that awards apply to active player-company contracts and preserve title history, which is useful behavioral context. However, it never explains that preview mode is non-committing and that a real award likely requires preview=false or confirmed=true, which is a meaningful behavioral gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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?

The description is one front-loaded sentence with the core action capitalized and the purpose stated immediately. 'Through PWS' is slightly redundant since the tool name already indicates the system, but the sentence is otherwise efficient and readable.

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?

With four parameters, a destructive annotation, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. An agent needs to know the preview-then-confirm workflow, what happens to the previous champion, and what the preview output represents; none of that is stated. The brief purpose sentence is clear but leaves too much essential invocation context implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters, but it does not explain preview, confirmed, titleId, or contractIds directly. It vaguely implies the contractIds count through 'singles, tag, or trios,' but the critical distinction between previewing and confirming an award is absent. This leaves the agent to guess the workflow semantics.

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 opens with the imperative 'PREVIEW OR AWARD' and explicitly targets 'a singles, tag, or trios championship to active player-company contracts.' This names a concrete action and resource and semantically separates it from read-only/get tools and from vacating. It could name a sibling explicitly, but the meaning is unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when awarding or previewing a championship to active contracts, with title history preservation. It does not provide explicit when-not/alternative routing, such as pointing to pws_vacate_title for vacating, but the intended usage is still evident. No misleading guidance is present.

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