Delete contest

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value the annotations cannot: the naming collision with contests_close and the recommended alternatives. It stops short of stating the concrete consequence of deletion (e.g. what happens to existing bets), which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the route and then the disambiguation. Efficient, though the raw route restatement partly duplicates the name/title rather than adding new 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent what it needs to choose correctly among the contest siblings. The only modest gap is that it never states the side effects on contest state or bets beyond implying contests_refund is the way to return bets.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema with formats. The description only echoes the path placeholders {channel}/{contestId} without adding syntax, defaults, or behavior beyond the schema, so the 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+resource (DELETE contest) and immediately disambiguates via the underlying HTTP route. It further pins down the identity confusion by noting StreamElements labels this 'Close contest', the same as contests_close, so an agent can distinguish it from the near-identical sibling.

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 routing guidance: 'Prefer contests_close to end a running contest and contests_refund to return bets.' It names both alternatives and the exact conditions that select them, leaving nothing to inference.

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