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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It states that the tool locks the knight and that the referee validates and measures it, and that after both are ready the duel starts. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., invalid knight), reversibility of the lock, or any return value. This leaves gaps but provides some transparency.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose ('Lock your knight for the duel'). It includes relevant details about the checks and outcome without excessive fluff, earning a 4.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify what the tool returns or what happens if validation fails. It also doesn't connect to prerequisite tools like enter_duel. Given the simplicity, it's adequate but not complete, so a 3.

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 fully describes the single parameter forge_handle with its origin (returned by enter_forge). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 'Lock your knight for the duel' and explains the checks (whole standard knight, weighing) and the outcome (opponent revealed and assaults start). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forge_add (building) and duel_assault (attacking).

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 when to use it (when you want to ready your knight for a duel) but does not explicitly state order relative to enter_duel or duel_assault, nor mention when not to use it. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it's only implied usage.

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