end_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. 'Forget' hints at removal but doesn't say whether the game and its move history are permanently destroyed, whether it's reversible, whether it requires ownership/auth, or whether an in-progress game is affected. For a state-mutating tool these are exactly the facts an agent needs.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler and the intent front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a destructive-leaning tool with zero annotations, no prerequisites, and no statement of what gets removed or whether the action is reversible, the definition is insufficient for correct invocation.

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% and the single game_id parameter is documented as 'Id returned by new_game.' The description adds no format, type, or provenance detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Forget a game you no longer need' uses a metaphorical verb that reasonably maps to ending/discarding a game session, and the resource (game) is clear. But it never states what actually happens to the stored game or its state, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_games or new_game.

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 phrase 'a game you no longer need' implies the triggering condition (you're finished with a session), which is minimal but real usage context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives, though for a terminal cleanup action there aren't many competitors.

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