Update contest

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not the sole carrier. It usefully adds the state gate on updates, but says nothing about whether fields are merged or replaced (notably whether 'options' overwrites the entire outcome set) or what happens to bets already placed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; there is nothing to trim. It is minimal rather than padded, though it sits close to the line where brevity shades into under-specification.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description carries only the state precondition. Annotations cover the safety and idempotency picture and the schema covers parameters, so the agent can call this, but the partial-vs-full update semantics remain undocumented on all three surfaces.

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%, so every parameter including the nested options objects is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but caps the score at the baseline.

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?

Specific verb (Update) plus resource (contest) and a state constraint (has not started yet) that separates it from contests_start, contests_close, and contests_create. It stops short of naming any sibling or listing which fields are mutable, but an agent can identify the operation.

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?

The precondition 'has not started yet' functions as an implicit when-not rule, which is genuinely useful. However, it never states what to do instead when a contest has started, nor points to contests_start or contests_close as the appropriate siblings, leaving the agent to infer the branch point.

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