create_puzzle_race

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, if it's destructive, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., does it return a race ID?). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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?

While the description is brief, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single phrase 'Create a puzzle race' fails to provide necessary context or details, making it inefficient in conveying useful information despite its short length.

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 implied by the tool name (involving creation of a structured event like a 'puzzle race'), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it lacks essential details about behavior, outcomes, or usage context, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 'Create a puzzle race' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what a 'puzzle race' is, what resources are involved, or how this creation differs from other creation tools like 'create_arena' or 'create_challenge' among the siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to decide between this and other creation tools like 'create_arena' or 'create_simul'.

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