Schedule an achievement live (admin)

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

Description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'MUTATES live game config — confirm and prefer staging', indicating the tool modifies live state and advising caution. This complements annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction.

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?

Description is concise (3-4 sentences) with key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: action, parameter constraint, behavior nuance, and warning. No wasted words.

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 tool complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), description covers purpose, key constraints, and behavioral implications. It is adequate but lacks explicit mention of projectId's role or timezone impact. Overall sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying mutual exclusivity of taskRef and groupRef, and the effect of omitting startDate. Schema coverage is high (71%+), so the description provides useful constraints not fully covered by schema alone. However, it doesn't explain projectId or timezone beyond defaults.

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 uses specific verb 'Activate' and clearly identifies the resource as a created task or task-group. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on scheduling achievements and mentions mutation. The purpose is 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?

Description provides clear context: pass exactly one of taskRef or groupRef, and omitting startDate makes it go live immediately. It warns about mutating live config and suggests confirming and preferring staging. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool over siblings like specter_schedule_liveops.

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