Publish a game

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

Beyond the annotations' basic non-read-only flag, the description reveals that the stored record is re-validated first, that failures are loud when specific fields are missing, and that re-publishing a delisted game preserves the original publish date. These are meaningful behavioral details that help an agent predict side effects.

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 three focused sentences: the core action, the failure path and remedy, and the delisted-game edge case. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains 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 single-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the side effect, the validation failure mode, the recovery path, and the re-publish date nuance. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and handle common 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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, game, with 100% coverage, including the slug-or-uuid format. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement, 'Publishes a game to the arcade,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling lifecycle tools by describing re-publishing behavior and pointing to update_game for fixing validation failures.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: if re-validation fails because the game is missing a tagline, category, or play URL, use update_game and call again. It also sets expectations for re-publishing delisted games. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' exclusion, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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