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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the deprecation status and that it applies a move, but it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or requirements. The deprecation notice is valuable, but other behavioral details are absent.

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 description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the most important information (deprecation). Every segment earns its place: the deprecation warning, the alternative tool, the action, and the removal version.

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 deprecated tool, the description adequately redirects to the alternative, but it lacks essential details for actually using the tool if the deprecation is ignored (e.g., move object structure, variant values, return format). Given the simple schema but empty parameter descriptions, this is a partial gap.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'move' object or 'variant' string parameters. The agent is left without any guidance on what values these parameters accept, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's function: "Apply a move to a chess game." It also explicitly labels itself as deprecated and points to the replacement (play_apply_move), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chess_make_moves.

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 explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool and to use play_apply_move instead, along with a removal version. This is unambiguous guidance on when to use the alternative.

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