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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false correctly signals a mutating operation, and the description is consistent with that — it discards something. It adds real context beyond the annotation by stating that only the *unsent* plan is cleared, implying no committed battle data is lost. It stops short of saying whether the operation is reversible or what errors occur when there is nothing to clear.

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 short sentence with the destructive verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though at this length it comes across as under-specified rather than deliberately terse, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essential minimum: what it clears and that the target is unsent. It is not fully complete — it says nothing about the post-clear state, error conditions, or how it relates to the surrounding battle_plan/battle_submit tools, which matters in a 70-tool sibling set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any argument shapes and correctly stays silent on them.

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 gives a specific verb plus object ('Очистить неотправленный план хода' = clear the unsent turn plan), which an agent can map directly to the battle planning workflow. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (game_battle_plan, game_battle_submit), so true sibling differentiation is left to inference, but the phrase 'unsent' still separates it from submit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'неотправленный' suggests you call this when a draft plan exists but has not been submitted. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as editing the plan via game_battle_plan or sending it via game_battle_submit, and no note on what happens if no draft exists.

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