update_game_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but reveals little. It says 'update or add' which implies mutation, but doesn't explain side effects, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or return behavior. For a tool that can modify many fields, this is insufficient.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded and free of waste. The first sentence states the action, the second adds a useful usage detail about granularity. Very concise.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't clarify how the tool behaves in edge cases (e.g., creating vs updating), what the response is, or any requirements. The high parameter count demands more context than provided.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only generalizes that fields can be updated individually or together.

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 identifies the action ('update or add') and the resource ('game project information'). It conveys a write operation that can modify existing or create new game info. However, it doesn't list specific fields, but the schema covers that, so it's still clear enough.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_game_info or clear_game_info. The statement about updating individual or multiple fields at once hints at how, but not when to choose this tool over others.

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