Create Achievement

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: permission level required, the feature-flag gate ('enabled Achievements'), and the limitation that avatars must be set in the UI. It does not describe failure behavior when the feature is disabled or whether the name must be unique.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the constraints (permissions, feature gate, avatar limitation) trailing in priority order.

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 creation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites and the main capability gap agents would hit (no file upload). It omits any mention of what the create call returns or whether the achievement name must be unique within the group.

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 50%: group and userCredentials carry schema descriptions, while name and description do not. The description only restates 'name and optional description' with no added format, length, or constraint detail, so it does not fully compensate for the undocumented params.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('group achievement') with the fields it accepts ('name and optional description'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutations such as update_achievement, award_achievement, and revoke_achievement without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites ('Requires group Maintainer/Owner and enabled Achievements') and one explicit exclusion ('file uploads are not supported by this tool'). It does not, however, explicitly route to or away from siblings like award_achievement or update_achievement.

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