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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the move stays hidden until the rival moves. It doesn't detail what happens after submission or any error conditions, but the added hidden-state detail is valuable beyond 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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then adding a key behavioral detail. Every sentence 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?

Given the simplicity (three required parameters), full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by clarifying the relationship to the 'move' sibling or outlining the match flow, but for a straightforward move submission it is adequate.

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 100%, so all parameters (id, key, move) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Your move') and resource ('this round of a bot-vs-bot match'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling tool 'move', which likely has a similar purpose, leaving ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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 description implies when to use it ('Your move for this round of a bot-vs-bot match'), but provides no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing to have joined a match or how it relates to 'move'.

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