Run auto-swap now

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the side effect ('changes what players see'), the rule applied ('drop the worst live thumbnails by QPTR, promote from the queue'), and the no-op behavior ('reports that rather than failing'). It stops short of mentioning permissions or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action, then fills in behavioral details and edge-case behavior.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what triggers, what rules are applied, what side effects occur, and what happens in a no-op case.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'game' with 'Game name or universe id.' The description adds no further parameter-level nuance beyond referencing 'a game's rotation', so the baseline score 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: 'Fire a game's rotation once, immediately' with a specific action and resource. It also distinguishes this from schedule-driven or configuration tools by emphasizing 'without waiting for the schedule or needing it enabled'.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when you want an immediate rotation, regardless of schedule or enabled state. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like get_auto_swap or configure_auto_swap, but the distinction is clear enough from 'now' versus scheduling/configuration.

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