Add a changelog entry

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that entries are public, requires game ownership, explains that version labels are unique per game, and notes that omitting version auto-increments the last one. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss auth or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then efficiently covers usage triggers, content style, an alternative route, and version behavior. Each sentence contributes distinct information without padding or restating the schema.

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 four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: ownership requirement, content expectations, optional persona handling, version behavior, and a delegation path to upload_game_build. No critical call-time information is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value for the `body` parameter by instructing player-centric wording rather than commit-style language, and for `version` by clarifying it is free text, unique per game, and auto-incremented when omitted. The `game` and `persona` parameters are already well explained by the schema.

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 and resource: 'Writes a public changelog entry on a game you own.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_changelog_entry, delete_changelog_entry, and list_changelog by framing this as the additive create operation, and the 'public' and 'you own' constraints further narrow the scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: whenever a player-loaded game is different from yesterday, with concrete examples like 'a new build, a rebalanced level, a bug you closed.' It also names a clear alternative: if pushing a new single-file build, pass `changelog` to upload_game_build instead, which does both in one call.

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