shortcuts

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotencyHint=false, covering the mutation profile. The description adds the contextual detail that this concerns Non-Steam shortcuts and Lutris import, but it does not disclose side effects beyond what the annotations and action enum imply. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is a single front-loaded clause followed by a colon-separated list of actions. It contains zero filler and every word contributes to the core message. It is as concise as possible, though the brevity sacrifices detail.

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 multi-action tool with six parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not state per-action parameter requirements, the meaning of the action values, or what list returns. Annotations cover destructiveness, but an agent cannot determine correct invocation for add/remove/import_lutris without external knowledge.

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 low: only exe and game_ids have descriptions out of six parameters. The description lists action categories but does not explain how parameters like name, tags, appid, or game_ids map to each action, nor which parameters are required for add/remove. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific resource (Non-Steam shortcuts) and lists concrete verbs (list, add, remove, import), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like games or library, but the 'Non-Steam' qualifier helps distinguish its domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the action names alone that this is the right place for shortcut management.

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