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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('Costs 25 credits each'), the effects of each move (accelerate, knock rivals, hold position), and its role in gameplay. It does not mention failure conditions, reversibility, or response format, but the provided behavioral details are meaningful and beyond what the schema offers.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core action and move list. The final sentence adds useful context about gameplay sequence but could be trimmed. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though slightly verbose in the last sentence.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover essential context. It mentions cost, moves, and when to use, but omits prerequisites (e.g., having an active bet), potential errors, or what happens after use. For a tool that spends credits and affects a live round, more detail on state changes and failure modes would be beneficial.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'ability' parameter by enumerating and describing the three valid values. However, it provides no information about the 'wallet' parameter, which is essential for execution. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other undefined.

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 ('Use a move') and resource ('in the arena'), lists the three distinct moves (thrust, shove, brake) with parenthetical effects, and clarifies its role as the active playing mechanism. It clearly differentiates from siblings like graviton_bet or graviton_state by focusing on in-round ability usage.

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 provides clear context: 'This is how an agent actually plays rather than only watching: bet on a champion, then push it with moves while the round runs.' This implies the tool is used after betting and during a round, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It gives a solid usage sequence without formal exclusions.

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