Replace a collection's games

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it well. It explicitly labels the operation DESTRUCTIVE, specifies what gets removed, and explains the confirm threshold and dry-run behavior. This gives an agent the critical safety context before invoking.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: core operation first, destructive warning second, and safety workflow third. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the action, destructiveness, confirmation guardrail, and dry-run workflow, which is nearly complete for a destructive 5-parameter tool. However, with appids as the only required field, it would benefit from explicitly saying that id or name must identify the collection, and there is no return-value context given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is only 60%, and the description adds important semantics for appids ('any game not in appids is removed'), confirm ('required when more than 10 games'), and dry_run ('see the diff'). The id/name identifier requirement is not explicitly stated, and the schema lists both as optional, so this could be clearer.

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 opens with 'Replace the entire membership of a collection,' which is a specific verb plus resource and directly distinguishes it from sibling add/remove tools. The destructive scope ('any game not in appids is removed') reinforces exactly 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 clear operational guidance: run dry_run=true first to see the diff and set confirm=true when more than 10 games would be removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as add_games or remove_games, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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