upgrade_to_bot

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. It effectively describes critical traits: the irreversible nature (destructive behavior) and the prerequisite condition (no games played). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the action, warning, and condition. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (irreversible account upgrade), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on the response (e.g., success confirmation or error messages), which would be helpful for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it implicitly clarifies that no inputs are required for this upgrade operation, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.

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 specific action ('Upgrade to Bot account') and the resource ('account'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_token' or 'revoke_token' which handle tokens, or 'get_user_profile' which retrieves data. It explicitly defines the operation as an irreversible account upgrade, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'the account must not have played any games' specifies a prerequisite condition. It also includes a warning ('WARNING: This is irreversible') that indicates when not to use it (e.g., if reversibility is needed), though it doesn't name alternatives, the context implies this is a unique, high-stakes operation among siblings.

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