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

readOnlyHint=false is the only annotation, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does not. It says nothing about whether a step consumes energy/turns, whether movement can fail (blocked passage, insufficient resources), or what the agent gets back. The description does not contradict the mutation annotation, so no contradiction flag.

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 no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than achieving a fully self-contained definition.

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-changing movement tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should at least say what a successful step yields (a new room description?) and any failure modes. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to discover the result semantics empirically.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-explanatory enum of four compass directions. The phrase 'в соседнюю комнату' (to an adjacent room) implicitly frames direction as a one-step movement vector, which adds a little meaning beyond the enum itself, though no syntax, defaults, or failure semantics are given.

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 names a specific verb ('Шаг' / step) and resource ('по шахте' / through the mine) with a clear scope: moving to an adjacent room. An agent can tell this is a one-tile mine movement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like game_move or game_mine_metro, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or exclusion, and no reference to the obvious alternatives (game_move, game_mine, game_mine_metro). The agent must infer from the name alone when this movement tool applies versus the other movement tools.

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