Create time series (streak) (admin)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which align with the description's explicit statement that the tool 'MUTATES live game config'. The description adds the caution to 'confirm and prefer staging', which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not contradict any 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 with only three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key parameters. It uses clear examples and a warning without fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the high-level concept but lacks details on return values, error handling, or full parameter semantics. The example provides some context, but completeness is insufficient for complex cases.

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 description coverage is 54%, so some parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning for two critical parameters ('stageLength' and 'interval') by explaining their roles with examples. However, many other parameters (e.g., tasks, rewards) are not explained in the description, relying heavily on the schema. This is a moderate compensation.

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's purpose: creating a TIME SERIES for per-window recurring tasks like streaks. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the use case (e.g., daily login streak) and referencing typeId 3. The verb 'create' and resource 'time series' 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 usage scenarios ('streaks', 'login N days in a row', 'weekly recurring that resets on miss') and includes a critical warning about mutating live game config and preferring staging. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, missing some guidance.

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