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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers none. It does not say this is a mutating, resource-consuming action, whether it is reversible, what happens on repeat calls, or what a successful response contains — despite it clearly being a state-changing operation.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concisely structured, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight and informative. The endpoint reference is the only content that earns its place.

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 mutating action tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, this definition is completely inadequate. An agent would have to already know the game's rules to call it correctly.

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 says nothing about city_id (which city the RAM is installed in) or idempotency_key (whether retries are safe), so an agent has no documented meaning for either argument from schema or 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 description restates the tool name ("install_ram") and maps it to a REST endpoint, but never says what installing RAM actually does in the game — whether it costs resources, increases a capacity stat, or attaches to a city. It is essentially a tautology plus an API route hint, giving an agent no more understanding than the name alone.

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 install RAM, what prerequisites must hold, or how this differs from related siblings such as uninstall_ram. The natural pairing with uninstall_ram goes unmentioned, so the agent must guess at the selection criteria.

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