Import game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that FEN/PGN imports accept variant options and JSON restores its saved options, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the return format (just 'new game ID'), whether existing games are affected, or potential side effects. The lack of annotations makes this a moderate gap, but the provided details are helpful.

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 concise: one sentence with key scoping information (formats, options). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured, but it has no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema. The description covers the main input formats and the variant behavior, but doesn't detail the structure of 'data' or 'options' beyond what schema offers. It's reasonably complete for the complexity level, but some details on return value or error handling are missing.

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 for the parameters. The description explains that 'format' can be json/fen/pgn and that 'variant' applies to FEN/PGN, but it does not describe 'data' or 'options' beyond general meaning. Since the schema has no descriptions, the description adds some clarity but not comprehensive coverage, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool imports game data (JSON, FEN, PGN) and returns a new game ID, distinguishing it from new_game which creates a new empty game. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like export_game or edit_board, but the verb 'import' and the resource type are clear.

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 implies when to use it: when you have external game data to load. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives for creating a new game (new_game), but the context of siblings and the description's clarity give some implied direction. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with new_game.

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