create_game

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning authentication requirements, which annotations do not cover. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or idempotency. With annotations indicating it's not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), the description aligns but could provide more context.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a key requirement. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 the tool's complexity as a creation operation with no output schema and annotations only covering read-only status, the description is minimally complete. It mentions authentication but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving gaps in 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?

The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the input schema provides, as schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters without extra value from the description.

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 ('Create a new game project') and target resource ('under a designer'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_game' or 'delete_game', which would require mentioning it's for initial creation only.

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 some usage context by stating 'Requires authentication' and implying the need for a designer ID, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_game' or how it relates to other tools such as 'get_my_designers' for obtaining the designer ID. Usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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