Define a set of achievements

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

The description directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false: it promises 're-running your publish script changes nothing,' which is an explicit idempotent upsert claim. Per rubric, a description that contradicts annotations receives a 1 here, even though the surrounding behavioral detail (ordering, partial failure, no deletion) is otherwise excellent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, front-loading the main purpose and build-pipeline context before moving into failure semantics and non-deletion guarantees. There is no redundant expansion of schema fields and no filler.

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 batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, ordering, the 100-entry cap, partial-failure behavior, recovery guidance, and the deletion path. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and recover from failures.

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, but the description goes well beyond the schema: it explains that slugs must match Arcade.achievements.unlock() exactly, that anything else is refused, that entries apply in order, and that an oversized set fails at the first non-fitting entry. These are semantics an agent cannot derive from the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('batch form of define_achievement'), states the exact key behavior ('upserts every entry on (game, slug)'), and distinguishes itself from the single-achievement sibling. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from define_achievement.

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 says explicitly when to reach for this tool ('when you publish'), gives a concrete pipeline position ('create_game → upload_game_build → define_achievements → add_screenshot → set_cover → publish_game'), and names the alternative for retiring achievements ('use delete_achievement'). The usage context is fully actionable.

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