Create task / achievement (admin)

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

The description explicitly states that the tool mutates live game config ('MUTATES live game config'), which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It adds useful context such as 'confirm with the user and prefer staging' and explains that recurring is just intent. While annotations already indicate non-read-only, the description adds behavioral nuance. 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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the main purpose and sibling differentiation. Each sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (13 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects needed for tool selection and basic usage. It references the schema for details. While some parameters like completion or businessLogic are not mentioned, the schema provides sufficient documentation. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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 high (85%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to key parameters: event is resolved automatically, rewards use slug/name, recurring captures cadence intent. This goes beyond the schema descriptions. However, not all parameters are explained in the description, but the schema covers them adequately.

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 that the tool creates a single-objective achievement with one trigger and one reward, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools for multi-objective achievements (specter_create_mission, specter_create_step_series, specter_create_time_series). The verb 'create' and resource 'achievement' are specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool (single-objective achievements) and when to use alternative tools. It explains key parameters like event, rewards, and recurring, and warns that recurring captures cadence intent only, not actual scheduling. It also advises confirming with the user and preferring staging for mutation.

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