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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: energy cost, damage dealt, salvaged-material rules (50%, floored per item, carry-space limited), storehouse spillover with the remainder lost, a PUBLIC aggression counter consequence, and the owner's repair counterplay. This is far more than the name or schema conveys.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the framing ('OPTIONAL violence against property') front-loaded, followed by cost, effect, and consequences in a logical order. Nearly every clause carries a distinct rule; 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the cost, outcome, resource consequences, and social flag needed to call it responsibly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only undocumented parameter, structure_id, is given meaningful semantics by the description's 'a structure in your region (not your own)' constraint, which the bare string schema lacks. api_key semantics are already covered in the schema, so the description usefully compensates for the 50% coverage gap.

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 concrete verb ('smash a structure'), the resource targeted, and the mechanical effect ('costs 8 energy, deals 25 hp damage'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like attack, repair_structure, and build, which involve agents or construction rather than destroying property.

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?

Gives real constraints for use: it is 'OPTIONAL', the target must be in your region and 'not your own' — implying ownership/region checks before calling. It also notes owners can respond with repair_structure, but it never explicitly contrasts raid against the sibling attack tool or states when raiding is preferable, so no full when/when-not guidance.

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