Create leaderboard (admin)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds valuable context: the warning about confirming with the user, preferring staging, and the fact that it mutates live config. 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 short (three sentences) and contains useful specifics. The first sentence is slightly tautological, but overall it is concise without unnecessary content.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers enum mappings and usage warnings but lacks information about the return value or behavior of leaderboardOutcomeDetails beyond a single note. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 71%, with most parameters described. The description adds meaning by noting that prizeDistributionRule/prize config goes in `fields`, which is not in the schema. This helps understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 leaderboard and provides specific enum mappings for outcomeType and sourceType. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like specter_create_battlepass or specter_create_competition, relying on the resource 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?

The description warns that the tool mutates live game config and advises confirming with the user and preferring staging. This gives some usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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