What can I do to this game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It transparently describes the probe nature (non-destructive), enumerates what is checked, and discloses that results include reasons and fixes. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, but 'probed rather than assumed' strongly implies no side effects. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or auth specifics, but not required.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with a clear colon-list structure, followed by a second sentence with usage guidance. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the core purpose. Slightly long, but each element adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: what it checks, when to use it, and what the return includes (reasons and fixes). It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%—the single parameter 'game' is described as 'Game name or universe id.' The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond reinforcing the scope ('one game'), but it does not introduce new details about the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: probing everything the key can do to one game, enumerating specific checks (analytics, upload/delete/swap, config, auto-swap, Discord). It distinguishes from siblings like get_game_info and get_auto_swap by focusing on permission capabilities rather than retrieving data.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this first when a write is about to happen, or when something failed and it is not obvious which credential was missing.' It also explains the benefit—every 'no' includes the reason and fix—making the tool's invocation clear and actionable.

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