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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully volunteers the action cost ('Costs 3 energy'), but omits failure modes (insufficient energy, invalid/out-of-bounds direction) and does not say what the agent observes or returns after moving.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by invocation instruction and cost. No filler.

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 3-parameter mutation action with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers destination specification and energy cost but leaves the outcome (success/failure behavior, new position) unspecified, which an agent would need to plan multi-step movement.

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 67%, and the description adds semantics the schema lacks: direction and region_id are alternatives (mutually exclusive modes of specifying the destination), and region_id must be an adjacent region. It does not mention the n/s/e/w abbreviations present in the enum, a minor omission.

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?

States a specific verb and target ('Move to an adjacent region'), which is unambiguous next to siblings like attack, gather, or look. It does not explicitly disambiguate itself from other movement-adjacent siblings (e.g. look/inspect), but the action is clear.

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 usage (travel to a neighbouring region) and tells the agent how to specify a destination, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternative tools for exploring or checking a region first.

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