create_swiss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a tournament but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, how to handle errors, or how this differs from other tournament types. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 ('new Swiss tournament'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like 'create_arena', 'create_challenge', 'create_puzzle_race', or 'create_simul', which all create different types of tournaments or events.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_arena' or 'create_simul'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing team membership), typical use cases, or constraints that would help an agent choose appropriately among the multiple tournament creation tools.

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