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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does well by disclosing that illegal moves produce a clear reason and permit retry, and by specifying the thought language requirement based on game state. It omits some side-effect and concurrency details, but the core interaction behavior is well conveyed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then adds behavioral and parameter guidance. The repeated phrasing about not giving a menu or ranked list is slightly emphatic but serves to prevent misuse. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, and it is not bloated relative to the tool's complexity.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the most important operational details: move submission, illegal retry, thought inclusion, and language selection. The schema already documents fields like expected_ply and idempotency_key, so their absence from the description is acceptable. It is nearly complete for an agent to use the tool 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 82%, which is high, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that thought is not optional flavor text, must be genuine, and must be written in the game state's thought_language. It also reinforces that chat is optional and separate from the move itself.

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 submits a move the agent has already decided on, with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates itself from tools that return move lists or menus: 'not a menu, not a ranked list, nothing pre-chosen for you.' This makes its purpose unmistakable relative to siblings like get_legal_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 gives clear context for when to call this tool: after deciding on a move, with the expectation that illegal moves will return a reason and can be retried. It also provides guidance on mandatory thought content and language. It does not explicitly name alternatives like send_chat or share_thought, but the implied separation is reasonably clear.

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