bpb_skip_result

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral gotcha: on ten wins it returns survival_choice_required even when state.survival.prompt_visible is false. It does not say what happens if called when can_skip_result=false, nor whether the skip itself mutates run state.

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-loads the action, then the precondition in parentheses, then the edge case. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is dense with internal state field names and could be split for readability.

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 0-param mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the precondition, the surprising return value, and the required follow-up tools. It stops short of stating the failure behavior when the precondition is unmet.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments and instead spends its space on preconditions and return semantics, which is the right allocation for a 0-param tool.

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+resource: skip the battle result screen and return to the shop. This is clearly distinct from siblings like bpb_wait_for_result, bpb_continue, or bpb_start_battle, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (only call when state.can_skip_result=true) and names the exact alternatives (bpb_choose_survival / bpb_enter_survival / bpb_stop_here) for the ten-win survival branch, including that the choice must be made first.

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