select_put_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the value mapping but does not say what happens after selection, whether the choice is final, what validation applies beyond the schema's revision note, or what game/turn consequences follow.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the trigger condition and then gives the value mapping. There is no wasted text, and the structure makes the key mapping easy to scan.

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 two-parameter selection tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough to identify the trigger and the value choices. However, it leaves out behavioral details an agent would need to invoke it confidently, such as the effect or finality of the selection and any consequences beyond the revision check.

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 description coverage is 50%, with only `revision` documented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the otherwise opaque `value` constants: `1` means straight and `2` means same-point array, adding real semantic value beyond the schema's `const` values.

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 trigger (`pending.kind=putMethod`) and maps the selectable values (`1` straight, `2` same-point array), so the action is identifiable. It does not fully explain what a `putMethod` selection means in game terms, but it is more specific than the tool name alone.

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 condition for use is explicit: respond when `pending.kind=putMethod`. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases versus sibling tools such as `play_cards` or `select_cards`, but the trigger context is clear.

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