create_game_pass

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the outcome (creates and returns the game pass with ID), the scope requirement (write permission), and the conditional behavior for making it purchasable. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects, but for a creation tool this level of transparency is sufficient.

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 sentences, each concise and front-loaded with the essential action: first sentence states the core purpose, second sentence adds conditional logic for purchasability, third sentence covers return value and auth requirement. No extraneous text; 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by mentioning the return value (game pass with ID). It covers required/optional parameters, conditional logic, and auth scope. It does not detail error cases, validation rules, or default values, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly for typical creation scenarios.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the interplay between priceInRobux and isForSale, clarifying that only name and universeId are required, and stating that the response includes the new ID. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter dependencies beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a new game pass in a universe'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like update/get/list by using 'Create' and specifying the resource, and it adds context that only a name is required, which helps differentiate from similar creation tools.

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 guidance on when to use additional parameters (priceInRobux and isForSale) to make the game pass purchasable, including a constraint ('cannot be put on sale without a price'). It also mentions the prerequisite of an API key with write scope. However, it does not contrast with sibling bulk_create_game_passes or state when not to use this tool.

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