Add a leaderboard localization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', which is necessary but not sufficient: it does not disclose uniqueness constraints, what happens if the locale already exists, whether a leaderboard version must exist, or any other side effects. This leaves important behavioral risk unaddressed for a mutating operation.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to purpose and scope, and it avoids restating parameter names or schema details.

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 create operation with 7 parameterschery and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits expected preconditions, uniqueness behavior, format-enum semantics, and guidance on optional fields. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema and sibling tools closely to invoke it correctly.

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 only 57%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters like description, formatterOverride, and formatterSuffixSingular. The phrase 'name/format' gestures at those parameters but does not explain their role, meaning, or required combinations, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a concrete resource ('a localized name/format for a leaderboard version'), and a scope ('for one locale'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_game_center_leaderboard, which creates a leaderboard itself rather than a localization.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a localization needs to be added to a leaderboard version. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it, so an agent has to infer the intended context from the tool name and sibling list.

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