Run the AI Coach on a replay

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses credit cost and units, refusal behavior without confirm_spend, the 3–7 minute runtime, the wait_seconds cap and async continuation, and refunds on failure. Annotations only say non-readonly/non-idempotent; the description supplies the real behavioral contract.

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?

Five dense sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with purpose then cost then consent then timing. Every sentence carries an operational fact an agent needs.

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?

No output schema, but the description closes that gap by telling the agent the run is async and that get_analysis collects the result. Cost, consent, timing, and refund paths are all covered for a 5-parameter paid tool.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema cannot: confirm_spend is framed as a gated consent flag ('tell the user the price and their balance and get a yes first'), and wait_seconds is contextualized as a bounded wait before the run continues asynchronously.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Run StarCraft2.ai's AI Coach on an uploaded replay.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like upload_replay (ingestion), get_analysis (retrieval), and ask_about_replay (Q&A).

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?

Explicitly states when the report is returned free (already has a report), when it costs (1 mineral), that confirm_spend must be true with user agreement first, and routes to get_analysis to collect the async result. Alternatives and conditions are all named.

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