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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals a mutation, and the description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond it: the server accepts exactly one submission per turn. It still omits what happens on a duplicate submit (error vs. overwrite), whether a plan must exist first, and what the call returns, which matters for a state-mutating tool with minimal annotations.

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 action and its key constraint front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing 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 zero-parameter battle action the description covers the what and the per-turn limit, but it does not describe the expected game-state context (plan must be prepared via game_battle_plan, must be in battle) or the response. In a 70-tool game API, that missing sequencing context is a real gap.

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 no parameter meaning to add beyond the empty schema. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 concrete verb and target: send the turn plan to the server. The parenthetical 'one time per turn' clarifies the action rather than merely restating the name. It does not explicitly name game_battle_plan as the prerequisite sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'один раз за ход' (once per turn) is a real usage constraint that tells the agent not to call it repeatedly. However, there is no explicit instruction on ordering relative to game_battle_plan or what to do instead when a plan has already been submitted, leaving sequencing to inference.

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