waitlist_games_v1_put

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 mentions authentication and required body, but does not describe side effects, reversibility, errors, or response behavior. The pointer to an external resource does not replace in-description transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the method, path, and purpose in the first segment, followed by essential requirements. Two sentences with no wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague body parameter, the description is insufficient for correct use. It delegates full instructions to an external resource instead of providing essential context.

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 baseline is 3. The description only repeats that body is required and oauthToken can be used, which is already in the schema, adding no extra meaning about the body structure or query/path parameters.

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 'Add to Waitlist' with the HTTP method and path, making the operation specific and identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get/delete tools, but the verb 'Add' and PUT method convey the intent.

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 prerequisites (required body, OAuth token) but no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling context implies CRUD usage, but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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