Schedule a leaderboard / competition (live-ops) (admin)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'MUTATES live game config — confirm with the user and prefer staging', providing behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not contradict 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?

Two sentences, each with essential information: first states purpose and constraint, second adds behavior warning and recurrence hint. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 six parameters, open world hint, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter constraint, mutation warning, and recurrence hint. It references an external skill for full fields schema, which is acceptable. Could mention projectId default behavior, but overall complete.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning by specifying mutual exclusivity of competitionId/leaderboardId and hinting that recurrence config goes in fields. It provides value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific verb 'Schedule' and resource 'leaderboard / competition', and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'specter_create_competition' and 'specter_create_leaderboard' which are for creating, not scheduling. The constraint 'Provide exactly one of competitionId / leaderboardId' adds precision.

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 gives clear context: 'Provide exactly one of competitionId / leaderboardId' and 'Recurrence config goes in fields'. It warns about mutation and suggests confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'specter_schedule_achievement' 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.