update_game_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses replace-not-merge behavior, the empty-array default (allow all), the 20-origin cap, the returned normalized list, and the non-obvious enforcement scope that only browser requests with an Origin header are gated. Auth/permission requirements for this mutation are still unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the mutation and its identifier source, then format rules, then return/scope caveats. No filler; each clause adds operative information.

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 2-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects (full replacement), defaults, limits, and the return shape ('normalized stored list'), leaving little an agent needs that isn't stated.

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% and the schema already documents both params (UUID source, exact-or-wildcard validation, maxItems 20, full replacement, empty = allow all). The description mostly restates that and adds concrete example patterns, which is marginal added value. Baseline 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 (Set) plus resource (a game's allowed-origins allowlist) and pins the operation to post-creation config, explicitly separating it from the at-creation path owned by siblings like create_game. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Says when to use it ('AFTER creation') and where the identifier comes from ('by gameId — from list_games'), which implies create_game handles the initial config. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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