send_game

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose side effects, the need for scoring updates, or any other operational traits.

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 extremely concise at three words, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It offers no structural benefit and merely mirrors the tool name, which would leave an agent without actionable information.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this description is drastically incomplete. It provides no context about how to construct the request, what the game short name refers to, or any expected behavior, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by clarifying key parameters, but it provides none. It does not mention chat_id or game_short_name, which are required, nor any of the optional parameters.

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 'Send a game' essentially restates the tool name 'send_game' with no additional information. It identifies the action and resource but fails to explain what a game is or how it differs from other send operations, falling into tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as registering the game, nor does it note that send_game typically only works in private chats.

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