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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so safety is largely covered. The description adds the source-of-truth constraint for "action" and the merge behavior of "params", but says nothing about what happens after the move (turn advancement, rejection of illegal actions, whether a move can be retracted).

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?

Front-loaded with the core instruction and then a tight parenthetical map of parameter-to-action usage; no filler sentences. The single long sentence is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers sequencing, the action-to-parameter mapping, and the catch-all params field. It omits only post-call behavior and error handling, which is a modest gap given the rich schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by binding parameters to specific game actions (amount for Inference raise/Auction bid, target for Werewolf kill/inspect/vote, recipient for Diplomacy send, orders for Diplomacy), which the schema does not express. It also clarifies that anything unnamed belongs in params.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Play your move for the current turn") and names the action vocabulary the tool consumes. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from wait_for_turn by naming it as the source of legal actions, though it never states outright that this is the tool to call after wait_for_turn returns.

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?

"action must be one of the legal actions from wait_for_turn" gives a clear prerequisite/sequencing rule, and "Optionally say something to the table with message" clarifies an optional path. It does not say when not to call it (e.g. out of turn, no pending turn) or what happens on an illegal action.

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