update_game

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

The description adds 'Requires authentication' which is useful context beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint: false). However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether updates are partial (only specified fields) or full, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or if changes are reversible. With annotations covering the mutation aspect, this adds some value but lacks depth.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes an essential constraint (authentication). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (mutation with 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and an auth requirement but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output expectations. With annotations providing some safety context (non-read-only), it's passable but could be more informative for a mutation tool.

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 lists the updatable fields (name, description, visibility), which aligns with the input schema parameters. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., max lengths, boolean meaning). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('game'), specifying the fields that can be modified (name, description, visibility). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_game' or 'delete_game' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'add_component_to_game' which also modifies games but in a different way.

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 mentions authentication as a requirement but doesn't specify prerequisites like having an existing game ID or compare it to other update-related tools (e.g., 'add_component_to_game'). There's no mention of when not to use it or what happens if parameters are omitted.

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