pws_save_championship

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the 'CREATE/UPDATE' wording aligns with that; there is no contradiction. The description adds a preview-vs-save distinction beyond the annotations, which is useful, but it fails to disclose what a preview returns, whether confirmed=true is needed to persist changes, or what an update overwrites.

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 short sentences with the core mode distinction front-loaded and no filler words. A minor deduction because 'PREVIEW' occupies a prominent position without being defined, so not every word fully earns its place.

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 destructive 11-parameter tool with no output schema, no enums, and no required parameters, this is under-specified: there is no description of return values, no explanation of the preview/confirm workflow hinted at by the preview and confirmed parameters, and no parameter semantics beyond titleId. An agent would have to guess at the save transaction behavior.

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 11 parameters, and it only explains titleId's role as the create/update discriminator. Parameters like name, type, brand, prestige, confirmed, defendable, genderLimits, weightLimits, and minWeightLimit receive no semantic explanation beyond the bare schema.

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 action on a specific resource: 'PREVIEW OR CREATE/UPDATE a player-company championship', and disambiguates the two modes with 'Omit titleId to create'. It is clearly the create/update tool for championships among siblings, though 'preview' is left unexplained and no differentiation from adjacent tools like pws_award_championship or pws_set_championship_active is made.

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 only guidance is the internal rule 'Omit titleId to create', which distinguishes create from update within the tool but says nothing about when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Several mutating siblings (pws_award_championship, pws_vacate_title, pws_set_championship_active) exist that an agent could confuse it with, and no exclusions or routing hints are provided.

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