spawn_create_game

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of optionally writing SPAWN_VARIANT_ID to .env and instructs keeping the play URL open, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or the return format.

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 consists of two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a side effect and a usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description provides the core purpose and a side effect, but it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (the play URL is only indirectly referenced) nor any error behavior or prerequisites, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 both parameters already well-documented. The description's mention of writing SPAWN_VARIANT_ID to .env mirrors the schema's setVariant description, adding no new semantic information.

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 uses the verb 'Create' with the resource 'a new game' and specifies the scope 'in the creator's account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_init or spawn_bootstrap that also relate to game projects.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when the goal is to create a new game, and the post-creation instruction ('keep the play URL open') hints at the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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