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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the blind simultaneous-submission mechanic, the async 'waiting' return when the opponent hasn't moved, the frame-0-is-your-forged-pose rule, the carry-forward pose semantics, and the 16-frame cap. It does not cover failure modes or the precise shape of the result.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs the two input modes and the return behavior into a few dense sentences with no filler. The domain jargon makes it terse to the point of requiring careful reading, but every clause carries 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?

For a nested-object tool with no output schema, the description explains both input modes and the return value ('the assault's result, or waiting'), which is what an agent most needs. It remains somewhat incomplete about result contents and the relationship to the forge/seal workflow.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that 'plan' is the Apprentice-level input and 'frames' is the Master-level input, plus the pose inheritance rule for frames. It restates field ranges already in the enum/bounds, keeping it from a 5.

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 action and resource: submitting 'your move for the current assault', sent blind and simultaneously with the opponent. This distinguishes it from siblings like duel_status or duel_ready, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to duel_ready, duel_status, or enter_duel. Usage is only implied by the nature of the operation, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing a forge_handle, or the duel being in progress) are spelled out.

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