Create currency (admin)

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

The description explicitly states that the tool mutates live game configuration and advises caution, which goes beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), but the description adds valuable context about the mutation's impact and the need for confirmation.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that cover purpose, parameter details, and behavioral warnings without any redundancy. Each sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

While the description is clear about inputs and behavior, it lacks information about the return value since there is no output schema. Mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., the created currency object) would improve completeness. Otherwise, it adequately covers the mutation 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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'type' parameter's meaning (virtual vs. real) and noting the auto-derivation of 'currencyId'. This compensates for the missing parameter description in a few cases.

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 tool creates a currency, specifying both virtual and real-money types. This distinguishes it from related tools like 'specter_create_currency_conversion' and 'specter_create_currency_policy', which handle different aspects of currency management.

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 context that the tool mutates live game config and advises confirming with the user and preferring staging. It does not explicitly exclude usage of sibling tools, but the clear purpose and behavioral warning offer sufficient guidance for appropriate use.

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