Recreate game lobby from post-game screen

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete precondition ('requires client to be in EndOfGame or PreEndOfGame phase'), the nature of the mutation ('mutates client gameflow state'), and an operational requirement ('needs POST /lol-lobby/v2/play-again on the write allowlist'). This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false and adds information the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the action and its source state, then routes to alternatives, then states preconditions and the allowlist requirement. Three sentences, each carrying distinct decision-relevant information with no repetition of the title.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema mutation guarded by annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, when it is valid, what it mutates, the alternative tools, and the required write permission. No meaningful gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that the queue and party settings are inherited implicitly rather than passed in, which explains the empty schema but adds no further per-parameter detail (none exists to add).

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 and resource ('triggers lobby recreation') plus the exact inputs it reuses ('previous game queue and party settings') and the screen it is invoked from. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings lol_workflow_lobby and lol_workflow_honor, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 an explicit when ('use this tool after a match completes to quickly return to a queue lobby') and pairs it with two named alternatives plus the conditions that select them (brand-new lobby with a specific queue ID → lol_workflow_lobby; honoring teammates → lol_workflow_honor). Nothing is left to inference.

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