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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the async task flow: it returns selection_task_id, that get_part_selection reports awaiting_user_selection then committed/expired/cancelled, and that the response carries recommended_poll_delay_ms. It also flags the important operational fact that the commit happens on the map, not in chat.

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 dense single paragraph with the core action front-loaded and no filler sentences. Some clauses (poll delay, status enumeration) could be tightened but every statement carries useful information.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description still supplies the full task lifecycle and polling guidance. It is largely complete, though the many undocumented parameters leave some invocation detail to inference.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the parameter burden. It meaningfully explains part_layer, purpose (realign/new territory/plain list), and how realign_operation and destination_territory_id pre-set a realign, but leaves ts, prompt, user_id, active_tal_id, new_territory, expiry_seconds, and remove_empty_territories 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('puts the open map into select mode on a part_layer') and the goanpurpose (realign, new territory, plain list). It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings get_part_selection and get_map_selection, which it names.

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?

Explains when to use it (letting the person adjust boundaries by picking parts) and routes one specific case to an alternative ('A selection the person started from the map legend is read with get_map_selection'). It does not, however, state explicit exclusions or prerequisites for the other paths.

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