create_game_pass

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints that the pass is purchasable ("for sale"). It says nothing about required permissions, whether the pass goes live immediately, whether creation is idempotent, or what is returned — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot tell what a valid call requires beyond the field names or what happens after creation.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description should compensate, but it adds no meaning for universeId, price, imagePath, or description. The only hint is that price relates to sale, which is already obvious from the parameter name and minimum constraint.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ("Create one game pass") which is understandable on its own, but it does nothing to differentiate from the sibling create_developer_product, and the parenthetical "(for sale)" is ambiguous rather than clarifying scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_developer_product or list_monetization, no prerequisites, and no stated alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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