push_broadcast_round_pgn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Push' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing PGN data, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects might occur. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with just five words, front-loading the essential action and target. Every word earns its place with zero wasted verbiage or redundant 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'push' entails operationally, what format the PGN should be in, whether there are size limits, what happens on success/failure, or how this integrates with the broader broadcast system given the sibling tools.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (broadcastId, roundId, pgn) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as PGN format requirements or ID validation rules, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Push PGN') and target resource ('to a broadcast round'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'export_game' or 'export_study_chapter' that might also handle PGN data, so it doesn't achieve full differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools related to games, broadcasts, and exports, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for this specific PGN-pushing operation.

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