Import Chess PGN

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that a new game is created (side effect), returns a game_id, and rejects invalid PGN. However, it does not mention idempotency, potential side effects on other resources, or permission requirements, but the core side effect is well-stated.

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 three concise sentences: action, result, and error handling. No unnecessary details or redundant phrasing. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description clearly states the output: 'Returns a new game_id.' It also mentions error rejection. It does not describe the error format or potential additional outputs (e.g., full game state), but for a simple import tool, these details are not critical. The description provides sufficient context for a basic understanding.

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 only parameter 'pgn' has no description in the schema. The description implies it is a PGN string by the tool name and purpose, and mentions rejection of malformed PGN, but does not elaborate on acceptable format (e.g., whether headers are required) or provide examples. This is minimal but adequate for a standard chess PGN.

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: 'Import a PGN into a new game' and its outcome: 'Returns a new game_id with the position after all PGN moves.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_game, game_pgn, and game_play_move by specifying the input format (PGN) and the new game creation.

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 mentions error behavior ('Rejects malformed or illegal PGN') but does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a PGN is available versus starting a blank game with create_game. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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