create_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the result is an *empty* game (no boards or keys), it returns a gameId, and it is explicitly a precursor to create_board/mint_key. It does not state auth requirements, slug-uniqueness/conflict error behavior, or whether the call is idempotent, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage and follow-up guidance; every sentence carries routing information. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but 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 simple 2-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical missing piece (returns gameId) plus the create ordering context. The main residual gaps are permission requirements and duplicate-slug error behavior, which are meaningful for a mutating create call.

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% — both 'name' and 'slug' are documented in the schema, including the slug pattern, length, and derivation hint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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 ('Create a new (empty) game in the developer's account') and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming bootstrap_leaderboard, list_games, create_board, and mint_key. An agent can tell exactly what this produces and what it does not.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when they ALREADY have a game'), when-not ('For a first-ever game from scratch, prefer bootstrap_leaderboard'), and prerequisite ('call list_games first to check'). It also names the correct follow-up tools in sequence, leaving no routing decision to inference.

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