play_cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful traits: local checking against server same-version rules (so operations may be rejected) and the possibility of returning a 'pending' state requiring further selection. It omits whether the move commits permanently, what happens to the chosen cards, and how a rejection surfaces, leaving key behavior unstated for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by behavior notes; there is no filler. Slightly more content would have been worthwhile, but nothing written is wasted.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does supply the important 'may return pending' return behavior and the validation model. It still lacks the semantics of putMethod, card/color encoding, and error/commit behavior, which an agent would need to call this correctly rather than by trial and error.

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 33%: revision is documented in the schema, but 'cards' (id enum, color 0-3) and 'putMethod' (1 or 2) have no explanation in either place. The phrase '摆牌或补牌' loosely maps to the two putMethod modes but never states that mapping, and the card/color encoding is left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names two actions (playing cards from hand and replenishing/drawing) and hints at a pending follow-up state. However, it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings like select_cards, draw_card, and discard_card, which appear to cover overlapping ground, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these 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 to use this versus the alternatives (select_cards, draw_card, discard_card, select_put_method), nor prerequisites such as turn ownership or required prior state. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'from hand or replenish'.

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