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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns the table after the other seat has answered, or a result, which is useful postcondition context. However, it does not cover legality failures, mutation irreversibility, or edge conditions for an action that clearly changes game state.

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 tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core operation is front-loaded before the return behavior.

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 state-mutating game action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite and the general return behavior. It remains incomplete regarding failure modes, invalid indices, and whether a result ends the game.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that n is a 1-based index into legal actions from the last table_state, which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare integer/minimum schema. It still does not explain how legal actions are enumerated or what happens if n is out of range.

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 states a specific verb and resource: play the n-th legal action from the last table_state. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as defend or order_formation.

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 a prerequisite (the last table_state) and gives the indexing convention (1-based), but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like defend or other action-oriented siblings. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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