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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses coordinate bounds, orthogonal movement, scout distance limit, the battle trigger when moving onto an enemy piece, and the two possible outcomes including the 422 illegal-move response. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the free-after-entry context, then states the action, constraints, side effects, and return/error behavior. Every clause 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?

For an action tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics, the move rule constraints, the battle side effect, and the error case. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide to call it and interpret the outcome.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning, and it does for coordinates: bounds 0-7, orthogonal movement, and scout range. match_id and player_token are not explicitly described, but their purpose is clear from their names and the match context. Overall, the description compensates for most of the coverage gap.

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: 'Submit one SHADOW COMMAND move' with explicit source and destination coordinates. It clearly identifies this as the move action among shadowcommand siblings like match_state, queue, and register. The battle and response details further reinforce its purpose.

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 says this is for submitting a move and that it is available '[FREE after entry]', giving clear context for when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but compared to sibling tools like aiarena_shadowcommand_match_state, the usage is reasonably obvious.

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