generate

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: text sections return a brief the agent must write from (the server never invents marketing text), deterministic sections mutate steamworks.yaml but 'never over approved values', and 'requirements' output is 'always to review'. This tells the agent exactly what gets written and what the safety boundaries are.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, and the body is split cleanly into text sections (agent-authored) versus deterministic sections (written directly), each as a tight bullet. Dense but every clause earns its place; minor verbosity in the parenthetical strategy list.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the missing workflow semantics and mutation boundaries, making it largely complete; the only real gap is the unexplained 'path' parameter, which an agent still has to infer.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It documents the 'section' values thoroughly (store_short, store_long, achievements, cloud, builds, requirements, code) and explains 'stage' for store_long ('outline' then 'text'), but the required 'path' parameter is never explained anywhere. It compensates well for two of three parameters but leaves the third undocumented.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ('Produce drafts for a part of the release') and enumerates the section types it handles, which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like save_draft, set_field and apply. The generic tool name 'generate' is rescued by the description, but sibling differentiation is only implicit rather than stated.

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?

It gives explicit per-section workflow: store_short means one variant per listed strategy saved via save_draft; store_long requires staging 'outline' before 'text'; deterministic sections write straight to steamworks.yaml. This is strong routing guidance, but there is no explicit 'when not to use this' statement or named alternative tool for the deterministic path.

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