create_arena

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description provides no information about permissions required, whether this action is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after creation. For a complex creation tool with 14 parameters, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the essential purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the core function.

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?

Given the complexity (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what an 'arena tournament' is conceptually, what gets returned after creation, error handling, or how this differs from other tournament formats. For such a complex creation tool, more contextual information would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the basic purpose statement. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('arena tournament'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other creation tools like 'create_challenge', 'create_puzzle_race', 'create_simul', or 'create_swiss' that exist in the sibling list, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple other tournament/competition creation tools (create_challenge, create_puzzle_race, create_simul, create_swiss) with no indication of when an arena tournament is appropriate versus these other formats. No prerequisites or contextual usage information is provided.

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