pws_vacate_title

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds valuable context: it verifies that all current champion slots were cleared and defaults to preview mode, providing a safety mechanism. This goes beyond the simple destructiveHint.

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 only two sentences, with the key action ('PREVIEW OR VACATE') front-loaded. Every word 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?

The description covers the core purpose, preview default, and verification behavior, and the annotations provide safety context. However, it does not explicitly state how to confirm the action (e.g., setting preview=false or confirmed=true), which is a notable gap for a destructive tool.

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 description explains that the preview parameter defaults to true, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the required titleId, the confirmed flag for actual execution, or the reason parameter, leaving significant gaps in parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: it can preview or actually vacate a player-company championship. It uses a specific verb ('vacate') and identifies the resource ('player-company championship'), distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like pws_get_titles.

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 indicates that the tool defaults to preview, suggesting a safe workflow where the user should preview before executing a vacation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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