Build a basic matchmaker configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the version/port verification check and the crucial caveat that no server-side matchmaker is created, making the 'generates a file, does not deploy' behavior unambiguous.

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 output is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the key constraint and workflow. It is a fairly dense paragraph but each sentence (capability, verification, no-API caveat, recommended setup) carries distinct information.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main concept and the return/config-file expectation. It stops short of explaining every optional parameter, but combined with 83% schema coverage an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description echoes the schema's semantics (team count/size, latency rule, expansions that relax rules over time) without adding format or syntax detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Generate a ready-to-upload Edgegap matchmaker JSON configuration') and enumerates the scope of what one profile contains. An agent can immediately tell it apart from sibling tools like edgegap_create_app or edgegap_deploy, none of which build matchmaker configs.

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?

Explicitly clarifies that Edgegap has no API for creating a matchmaker and that this tool does NOT create one, instructing the agent to save the result and have the developer upload it manually. This is clear usage context, but it describes the output workflow rather than naming a sibling alternative to pick instead.

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