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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — the move format is game-specific — but says nothing about turn ordering, validation/failure behavior, whether a move is reversible, or auth expectations for a state-mutating tool.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the format caveat immediately after. 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?

It addresses the hardest gap — how to build the opaque nested move object — via a pointer to move_help, which helps. But for a state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no turn/error semantics, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 100%, so game_id, move, and token are already documented in the schema. The description adds the meaningful note that the nested move object's shape varies per game and points to move_help, which is modest added value over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Make a move in a game you are playing.' That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like move_to (spatial navigation) or perform. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to differentiate against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It provides a pointer for how to construct the move ('see move_help in your_games'), which is real usage help, but it never says when to use this versus alternatives such as perform or game_chat, nor any preconditions like being in an active, on-turn game. Usage is only implied by the game context.

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