create_solver_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ownership, required scope (playground.write), default behavior for 'track', and the template's lifecycle (can be copied and submitted). This is above average for a creation tool, though it could mention idempotency or error states.

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?

Three concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. No redundancy or extraneous details. Every sentence adds value: purpose, scope/default, and usage context.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core aspects but lacks details: return value, parameter explanations beyond track, and potential error conditions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only the 'track' parameter (defaults to 'solo'), leaving 'title', 'solver_code', and 'source_contributor_network_item_id' unexplained. This provides insufficient guidance for the four parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Create a solver template' with the specific verb 'create' and resource 'solver template'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, update, or list by focusing on creation. The additional context of ownership and usage in Playground runs clarifies the tool's role.

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?

Provides clear context: owned by calling account, requires playground.write scope, track defaults to 'solo', and the template can be copied for competitions. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the nature of creation vs. other operations is implicit, and the scope and default are valuable usage hints.

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