Create contest

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds the lifecycle fact that the contest must be started separately, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether an active session/loyalty module is needed, or what happens on a duplicate title.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the follow-up action placed second. Nothing repeats the tool name or title unnecessarily.

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 7-parameter write with 2 required fields and a fully documented schema, the description plus annotations cover enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the return value (e.g., a contest id needed for contests_start/bet), which matters since there is no output schema.

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% and includes examples for title, options, command, channel and bet bounds, so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds no extra syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what is already documented, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 contest") and adds the domain semantics (viewers bet loyalty points on an outcome), which tells an agent exactly what artifact is produced. It also names the sibling contests_start as the next step, implicitly distinguishing creation from activation and from contests_update/contests_list.

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?

"Start it with contests_start" gives explicit workflow sequencing that an agent would not otherwise infer, so it knows create alone does not launch betting. It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., an already-running contest, missing loyalty module) or prerequisites such as required permissions.

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