Create competition / tournament (admin)

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

The description explicitly warns 'MUTATES live game config — confirm with the user and prefer staging.' This adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations (which show destructiveHint=false), making the risk clear. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences and includes inline explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a competition') and supplies necessary details without fluff.

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 (6 parameters, nested fields, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and mutation warning. However, it does not describe the return value or error states, which would be helpful for the agent to handle responses 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 50%. The description adds meaning for competitionFormatTypeMasterId (maps IDs to types) and the `fields` parameter (explains matchId+gameId usage and entry details). However, other parameters like name, competitionId, and isSpecialEvent lack additional explanation beyond the schema, which only provides types/required status.

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 'Create a competition' and explains the different format types (tournament, instant battle, etc.) with specific IDs. This differentiates it from sibling tools like specter_create_battlepass or specter_create_event.

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 explicit guidance on when to use specific parameters (matchId+gameId for match-based, entry prices/prizes/schedule in `fields`). It also warns that the tool mutates live game config and recommends user confirmation and staging. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool over alternatives like specter_create_event.

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