Create currency policy (admin)

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

Discloses mutation behavior ('MUTATES live game config') and advises staging, which adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Notes that it changes live configuration, crucial for agent decision-making.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action and policy types, then mutation warning. No wasted words; efficient for quick scanning.

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?

Covers main purpose and mutation risk but lacks details on parameter dependencies per policy type (e.g., which params are required for 'currency_decay'). Given 13 parameters and no output schema, more explicit mapping would improve completeness.

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?

Description mentions policy types and currency identification, partially mapping to parameters (min/max, decay rate, cap). However, with 46% schema coverage, many parameters (e.g., projectId, threshold, includePurchases) are not explained. The description adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for low schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool attaches a policy to a currency, listing three specific policy types (balance_limits, currency_decay, earning_caps). Distinguishes from sibling tools which create other entities. Explicitly mentions the currency identifier (slug/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?

Provides clear context: 'MUTATES live game config — confirm and prefer staging' advises caution and environment preference. However, no explicit comparison to alternative tools, though sibling tools are for different resources so implicit distinction is sufficient.

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