set_player_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses mutating behavior and parameter effects. It explains conditional requirements (provider for agents), idempotent update behavior, and rejection logic for client_protocol_version, exceeding expectations for transparency.

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?

Single paragraph, well-structured, no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, and update ability. Optimal length for LLM consumption.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers registration context, parameter semantics, and behavior. It mentions the return value ('confirmed player profile') and all relevant operational details, leaving no gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and constraints (display_name, kind, provider conditional, model, version, client_protocol_version). Adds critical meaning beyond schema structure.

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 tool registers identity with the server, a prerequisite for lobby operations. It uses specific verbs ('Register', 'Must be called before') and distinguishes from siblings like heartbeat or whoami by defining its role as an initialization step.

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 states when to use ('before any lobby operations') and lists excluded situations (e.g., provider ignored for humans). Provides conditions for parameters and mentions update capability, giving clear usage boundaries.

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