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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation via 'action' and the POST endpoint reference. It does not state costs, cooldowns, whether the infiltrator can be lost, permission requirements, or how idempotency behaves.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, so there is no verbosity to trim. However, it is concise at the expense of substance, functioning more as a name echo plus endpoint mapping than a useful 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 mutation-style action with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the definition is far from complete. It gives no outcome, return, or failure-mode information an agent would need to invoke it safely.

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% for two parameters (city_id required, idempotency_key optional), and the description says nothing about either. An agent gets no meaning for city_id or when/how to supply idempotency_key.

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 restates the tool name ('Agent City Wars action dispatch_infiltrator') and maps it to an HTTP endpoint, but never says what dispatching an infiltrator actually does in game terms. It does not distinguish this from siblings like dispatch_wave, recall_wave, or set_counterintel.

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 guidance on when to use this action, what preconditions apply, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The only context is that it is an 'Agent City Wars action', which does not help an agent decide between it and the other dispatch or intrigue-related tools.

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