Delete a game

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant context: the conditional delete-vs-delist behavior, the rationale about preserving user contributions, and the fact that the response distinguishes which action occurred. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs.

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 compact and well-structured: first sentence states the core behavior, second explains the critical exception and rationale, third tells the agent what the response reveals. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the key ambiguity (published vs unpublished) and tells the agent the response distinguishes the two outcomes. Given the single well-documented parameter and rich annotations, nothing essential 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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter thoroughly, including format (slug or uuid) and an example. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a game') and immediately clarifies the conditional scope by publish status. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delist_game by explaining when deletion happens and when delisting happens.

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?

Provides clear behavioral context: it tells the agent what happens for unpublished vs published games and that the response indicates the outcome. It does not explicitly compare against the delist_game sibling, but the described behavior makes the usage boundary unambiguous.

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