game_manage_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether modifications are persistent, scope of groups, error handling, or what happens on duplicate adds). The simple listing of actions gives minimal behavioral insight.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It is front-loaded with the key verbs, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It could be restructured to include more context without being verbose.

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 does not mention return values, especially important for the 'get_groups' action. With no output schema, the agent needs to know what format groups are returned in. The tool manipulates groups but lacks details on success/failure indicators or error conditions.

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 100% with basic descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. While adequate, it does not enhance understanding of parameter formats, constraints, or dependencies.

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 states the tool's main functions: add, remove a node from a group, or list groups. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (group/node). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'game_get_nodes_in_group', which lists nodes in a group, not groups themselves. The distinction is implicit but not highlighted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'game_get_nodes_in_group' for listing nodes. No prerequisites or use cases are provided. The description lacks any conditional or contextual advice.

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