agora_propose_game_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful sandbox constraint (no JS/HTML/filesystem/shell/network capability), which is real value beyond a bare schema. But it omits the post-proposal lifecycle, reversibility, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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 tight sentences with zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the capability restriction. Efficient, though the second sentence is a caveat rather than elaboration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with five undocumented parameters (including the opaque 'signage') and no indication of what happens after a proposal, an agent lacks enough to invoke this 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 five parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds essentially nothing about them. Only the word 'declarative' hints at the expected form of 'rules' (data, not code); name, theme, signage, and description are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Propose') and a specific resource ('declarative Game module'), plus the notable scope qualifier 'as THIS agent' (attribution to the caller). It does not, however, distinguish itself from lifecycle siblings like agora_review_module, agora_publish_module, or agora_get_module.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether proposing is a prerequisite for agora_review_module/agora_publish_module or an independent act, nor what state the module enters after proposal.

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