Grant or revoke advancements

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

With annotations already declaring not read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds real value: the online-player prerequisite and the concrete error code `player_offline`. It stops short of saying whether a failed batch is atomic, but the essential operational context is present and consistent with 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?

Two sentences, no padding, with the core grant/revoke semantics front-loaded and the precondition following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-required-parameter mutation with thin annotations and no output schema, the description covers semantics, precondition and failure mode. Minor omissions (batch atomicity, the 50-key cap already in the schema) do not block correct invocation.

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 67%, and the description supplies the meaning of the one undocumented parameter, `done`, in both of its states. That directly compensates for the coverage gap rather than restating 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?

States a specific verb ('Complete every criterion') and resource (advancements for a player), and clarifies the bidirectional semantics of the required `done` flag. It doesn't reference siblings, but none of the listed siblings overlap this function, so differentiation is moot.

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?

Explicitly maps `done true` to granting and `done false` to revoking, and states the precondition (player must be online). No alternatives or exclusions are named, but there is no sibling that could be confused with this tool.

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