bpb_enter_survival

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the can_start precondition, the handling of a native prompt still within its 1-second delay, and that trophies are not settled first. However, it does not explain what happens if the precondition is false or what state change/failure behavior the caller should expect.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and precondition, and every clause adds operational information. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 a zero-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation condition, the native-prompt timing edge case, and the trophy-settlement caveat. It is nearly complete, though it could mention failure behavior when can_start is false.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose semantics need additional clarification in the description.

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 action, selecting 'enter survival mode', and adds the triggering condition of ten wins. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool bpb_choose_survival, which appears closely related.

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 an explicit precondition: it can be called when state.survival.can_start=true. It provides clear context for invocation but does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative such as bpb_choose_survival.

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