Create currency conversion (admin)

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and not idempotent. The description adds that it 'mutates live game config'—reinforcing the mutation nature—and reveals a key behavioral detail: it resolves currency slugs/names to IDs automatically. This goes beyond what annotations state.

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?

Only three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action, explaining input handling, and warning about mutation. No wasted words. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created conversion). However, for an admin mutation tool with clear input documentation and behavioral warnings, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and important cautions.

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 explains that source and target parameters accept slugs/names and are resolved to IDs, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'slug/name' description. It provides a concrete example for conversionRate ('e.g. 0.01 for 100:1'). Other parameters (isEnabled, conversionFee, projectId) rely on schema descriptions, but the description covers two of the three required params with extra context.

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?

Description clearly states 'Define an exchange rate from one currency to another' with an explicit example. The tool's name and title reinforce this. Among the many 'create' sibling tools, this one is uniquely identifiable as creating currency conversions, so it is well-differentiated.

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 includes a warning 'MUTATES live game config — confirm and prefer staging.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool (admin tasks, with caution) and implies it should not be used in production without confirmation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the staging advice is valuable guidance.

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