Add games to a collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that dynamic collections are refused and edits are silently reverted by Steam, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, dry_run behavior, or what happens with invalid collection identifiers.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and the most important caveat are both front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaning.

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 description captures the main edge case and basic purpose, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps: how to choose between id and name, what dry_run does, and what the tool returns. These are not fatal because the schema covers parameter basics, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds the static-vs-dynamic distinction, which informs the collection identifier parameters, but it does not elaborate on dry_run or how id/name should be used together.

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 identifies the action ('Add games') and target ('existing static collection'), and the refusal of dynamic collections distinguishes it from the sibling remove/replace tools. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this for static collections, not dynamic/filter-based ones. It explicitly states the when-not case but does not name an alternative tool for other collection mutations, leaving some routing to inference.

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