bulk_create_game_passes

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: sequential creation with automatic rate limiting, return summary with per-item result (id or error), and partial failure handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it covers most essential behavioral aspects, though it does not explicitly state whether the operation is idempotent or immutable, but that is less critical for a create operation.

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?

Description is 2 sentences, clearly front-loaded with the purpose and key benefit. It efficiently covers usage guidance, behavior, and error handling. Could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Items are created sequentially' is implicit in 'Create many game passes in one call'), but overall well-structured.

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 create tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the batch benefit, rate limiting, partial failure behavior, and return structure. It lacks explicit mention of output format (e.g., whether summary includes counts), but given no output schema, the description's mention of 'summary plus a per-item result' is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents parameters (universeId and items with nested properties like name, isForSale, etc.). The description adds value by explaining the sequential creation and rate-limit context, which goes beyond basic schema docs, but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics (e.g., constraints on name length or special characters) beyond 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Create many game passes') and resource ('game passes'), specifying it is a batch operation as an alternative to repeated calls of create_game_pass. This distinguishes it well from siblings like create_game_pass and bulk_update_game_passes.

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 instructs to use this instead of calling create_game_pass repeatedly, implying efficiency and providing a clear when-to-use guideline. It also mentions automatic rate limiting (5 writes/second), which helps the agent decide based on throughput needs, and notes error handling (one failing item does not stop the rest).

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