add_game_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this tool mutates config.json, pushes to two repositories, and automatically writes publish_time, which goes beyond the obvious 'add' side effects. It does not cover error cases or failure behavior, but the key mutation facts are clearly declared.

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 concise sentence that names the operation, the target, the side effect, and the special publish_time behavior. Every phrase carries useful signal with no filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with 7 required parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but leaves gaps: no return value description, no duplicate/conflict handling, and no indication of what a successful invocation returns. The schema supplies paramter details, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient for invoking this tool safely in a complex flow.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents tokens, shas, config, library, and the game object. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; mentioning publish_time mirrors the schema's default-current-time semantics rather than extending them.

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 action and target: adding a game entry to config.json and pushing it back to both repositories. It also mentions the automatic publish_time write, which clarifies the tool's specific responsibility. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like full_upload_game, but the config-focused operation is still distinguishable from upload/asset tools.

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 full_upload_game or release_game_asset. The description implies the use case (adding a game entry), but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or how this tool fits into the larger workflow.

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