discard_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one real behavioral fact: after the discard, other players may choose to play in (插牌), which affects game flow. However, it says nothing about whether this is irreversible, whether it consumes the turn, what permissions or game state are required, or what happens to the discarded card beyond the immediate action.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and then the follow-up consequence. It is efficient, though it leaves the action without any surrounding context that would help an agent place it in the turn flow.

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 state-mutating game action with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested required parameter, the description is only partially sufficient. It discloses the reaction phase, but omits turn prerequisites, the meaning of the card's color field, and any indication of the result, which the missing annotations and output schema leave uncovered.

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 only 50%: revision is documented in the schema, but the nested card object has no field descriptions, and the description says only '一张牌' without explaining that it is an id+color pair or what the color integers 0-3 mean. The enum on id and range on color give structural constraints but no semantic meaning, and the description does not compensate.

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: discard one card from your own hand, plus the follow-up where other players decide whether to play in (插牌). That is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes this action from siblings like play_cards, select_cards, or draw_card, leaving the agent to infer which card-moving tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool applies versus alternatives, no turn or game-phase prerequisite, and no pointer to play_cards/draw_card as siblings. The only contextual information is the post-discard reaction phase, which describes consequence rather than selection guidance.

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