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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The API-equivalence note weakly implies a mutation (POST), but it says nothing about cost, side effects, reversibility, idempotency semantics, or turn/authorization constraints for a game action that is likely consequential.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency; the one clause present (API equivalence) does little work for an agent. There is no front-loaded statement of action or effect.

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 game-mutation tool with an idempotency parameter, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter docs, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent could not confidently choose this over recall_wave or predict the outcome of calling it.

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 both parameters. The description does not explain what city_id identifies, whether it is the target or origin, or what an idempotency_key does here (its purpose is especially non-obvious in a turn-based game context). Two undocumented parameters with no compensating prose.

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 text only restates the tool name and notes it is 'identical to POST /api/dispatch_wave'. It never says what dispatching a wave does in Agent City Wars — no mention of sending a force, attacking, moving units, or what a 'wave' is. The only added content is an API equivalence note, which is metadata rather than purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all, despite close siblings like recall_wave and dispatch_infiltrator that an agent must distinguish this from. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing hints.

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