game_center_details_create_instance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'POST' does signal a state-changing operation, but there is no mention of side effects, whether a Game Center detail is singular per app, required authorization, conflict/duplicate errors, or idempotency. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs substantially more than a raw endpoint.

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?

It is short, but it opens with a URL rather than a purpose statement and duplicates the route verbatim in parentheses ('POST /v1/gameCenterDetails (POST /v1/gameCenterDetails)'), which is pure waste. What remains is a schema pointer that the input schema already carries.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form body, the description defers the entire contract to an external OpenAPI components.schemas reference the agent may not be able to resolve. Required attributes, relationship linkage to the parent app, and expected error behavior are all unstated, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and the schema already states the body shape is components.schemas.GameCenterDetailCreateRequest, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description repeats that exact sentence and adds nothing about the JSON:API envelope's structure, required attributes, or relationships.

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 is essentially the tool name restated as an HTTP route: 'POST /v1/gameCenterDetails' is the machine form of 'game_center_details_create_instance'. It never says in natural language what a Game Center detail is, what it represents (e.g. an app's Game Center configuration), or how it differs from game_center_details_update_instance or game_center_details_get_instance. An agent learns only the verb and the collection path it already had from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as game_center_details_get_instance or game_center_details_update_instance. The agent is left to infer that 'POST' means create-a-new-resource from the tool name alone.

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