Store Roblox credentials for a game

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

Only annotation provided is 'None provided', so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that credentials are stored encrypted and never read back, that clearing the cookie reverts to a shared default account, and that the tool is owner-only. This is thorough for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but packed with useful information, each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then details usage, security, and exclusions efficiently. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral traits (encryption, not read back), usage instructions (clearing, default account), and access control (owner only). The only minor gap is not specifying what happens after success or if input is invalid, but that's not crucial for a setter with clear params.

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% and each parameter already has a description. The description adds context about what the values unlock and how clearing works, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Thus it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: attach an API key and/or cookie to a game. It names the specific resources (Open Cloud API key, .ROBLOSECURITY cookie) and the target (a game), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_game_info or check_permissions.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: when to use (the two things check_permissions reports missing), what each credential unlocks, how to clear them (empty string), and a critical exclusion: 'Owner only.' It also warns not to invent values, which guides the agent's invocation behavior.

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