Add a game as a project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the pinning mechanism, the default-write failure when unpinned, refusal of already-claimed games, and the recommended next step—all critical behavioral traits.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, input flexibility, failure/refusal behavior, and follow-up guidance. Nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors (ownership, default-write failure) and next steps. It feels entirely sufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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?

All three parameters already have clear schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is high. The description adds dimension by explaining why the game identifier matters (ownership/pinning) and clarifying when isUniverseId is needed, supplementing rather than repeating the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Put a Roblox game on this account') and clarifies the outcome—making the game actionable by the rest of the toolset. It clearly distinguishes itself from the channel/ticket/thumbnail tools in the sibling list.

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 provides strong when-to-use context: it positions this as the setup step that must happen before other tools can act on a game, and it explicitly recommends following with check_permissions. It doesn't name a direct alternative to prefer instead, so it stops one step short of perfect guidance.

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