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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does notable work: it discloses the cost (one move and a fare), the rival setback, and a non-obvious mechanic (a stuck bee becomes a wall). It omits failure modes, reversibility, and any billing/authorization behavior for the specified npub.

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 that are front-loaded on the action, then the cost/effect. The flavor is dense but each sentence conveys mechanics (cost, setback, wall behavior) rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a cost-bearing mutation move with no annotations, the description covers cost and strategic effect but leaves out failure conditions and when the move is legal, which an agent would need.

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 coverage is 67% — at_cell and npub are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., what 'fare' means for billing, or the role of dpop_token, which is undocumented in both places). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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?

Despite game-flavored wording, the description states a specific verb+resource: bringing down an open tunnel cell. It is distinguishable from siblings like beesknees_fly and beesknees_dig by the destructive/targeted nature of the action, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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 conveys a strategic rationale ('so the bees behind you must cut it again') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text when sealing is preferable to fly or dig.

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