set_victory_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the goal becomes locked, appears in every turn briefing, and triggers deterministic deviation checks, with a concrete example. It stops short of stating whether the goal can later be changed or cleared, or what errors/permissions apply.

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 front-loaded with the action, then timing, then downstream effects. The parameter section is compact, and the parenthetical example earns its place by illustrating what deviation checks flag.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers persistence, briefings, and deviation checks. It could better connect to get_victory_progress or explicitly state whether re-calling changes the locked goal, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 define both parameters, and it does: victory_type is constrained to SCIENCE, CULTURE, RELIGION, or DOMINATION, and reason is explained as being shown in briefings. It does not mention exact casing, length constraints, or validation rules, but the core semantics are covered.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: locking in the game's victory path. It clearly frames this as goal commitment rather than progress inspection, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_victory_progress for contrast.

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 states clear timing: 'Do this once, early.' That tells the agent when to invoke it, and the downstream effects explain why early use matters. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, keeping it short of a 5.

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