pws_create_stable

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds context beyond annotations by revealing the dual preview/create modes, verification behavior, and BETA status. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. 'BETA: PREVIEW OR CREATE' gives immediate context, and each sentence contributes unique information (action, verification, default). 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return values and side effects. It covers the core behavior but omits behavior around 'confirmed' and 'heat', and doesn't state what the tool returns after creation or preview. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 carries the burden. It explains contractIds ('at least two active contracts'), leaderContractId ('optional leader'), and preview ('Defaults to preview'), but leaves 'heat' and 'confirmed' completely unexplained. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'PREVIEW OR CREATE' a player-company stable, with precise constraints (at least two active contracts, optional leader). This differentiates it from siblings like pws_get_stables or pws_dissolve_stable, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (create or preview a stable) and notes the default preview behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but implicit.

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