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

Annotations already do the heavy lifting for readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations by explicitly stating the session handle grants no wallet or claim authority, which is a critical security/behavioral nuance. It also clarifies 'Commit' implies a state mutation, consistent with the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every token adds value. The security/authority caution in the second sentence is important and not redundant. No filler or repetition.

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?

With a full input schema for all three parameters, a defined enum, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description only needs to add the non-obvious operational details. It does that through the move types and the wallet authority warning. A minor gap is lack of mention that a prerequisite match/session must exist (e.g., from join_arcade_game), but this is reasonably inferable.

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% and includes detailed types, patterns, and enums for all three required parameters. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a clear verb 'Commit' with specific resources (SCAN, LINK, or BUILD) and the object 'current wave'. It distinguishes this tool from the game-related siblings like play_signal_city by naming the arcade move types and implying the arcade context. The action is unambiguous.

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: use this to commit a move for the current match wave. It implicitly differentiates from prepare_* and join_* tools by focusing on the actual move execution. The note about the handle granting no wallet/claim authority also functions as a contextual exclusion, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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