yagames-update-draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the authentication-env-var prerequisite, a genuine operational fact beyond the name. But it never states whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, what happens if the draft is already in moderation, or whether changes affect a published game.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the prerequisite in a clean second sentence. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness borders on under-specification for an 11-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-equipped: no update semantics, no effect on moderation state, no return-value information. The auth note is the only contextual hint, and required-parameter semantics beyond 'appId is the console ID' are absent.

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 only 9% — ten of eleven parameters (tags, title, category, howToPlay, languages, platforms, cloudSaves, description, orientation, ageRating) have no schema description — so the tool description must compensate. It provides zero information about any parameter: no guidance on which fields are updatable, how to format them, or how they interact.

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 action ('Update') on a specific resource ('an existing game draft'), and the word 'existing' implicitly separates it from the sibling yagames-create-draft. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself and relies on inference rather than explicitly naming distinguishing scope.

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?

Gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its nine siblings. The 'Requires authentication env vars' note is a prerequisite, not a selection criterion; there is no mention that create-draft is for new drafts, that upload-build feeds drafts, or where update fits in the moderation/publish workflow.

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