add_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation, implying mutation/write behavior, but doesn't disclose any other traits: no information about permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or unnecessary 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), usage context, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'runner' and 'service', or clarify what 'slug' is used for). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Add a new game') and target resource ('to the Lutris library'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_game' or 'remove_game' by indicating creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_service_games' which might also involve adding games indirectly.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the game must be installed first), when to use 'update_game' instead for existing games, or how it relates to 'search_service_games' for discovering games. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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