set_ready

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does surface the most important trait — that the last ready vote triggers an immediate game start or next round, a significant side effect — but says nothing about whether you must already be in a game, whether the toggle is idempotent, or how failures present (the stale-revision rejection is documented only in the schema).

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the consequence and the precondition. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the critical downstream effect, and a prerequisite. The only real gap is error/eligibility behavior (e.g. calling outside a lobby), which is not covered by annotations either.

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 50%: `revision` is documented in the schema, while the `ready` boolean (default true) is not. The phrase '准备或取消准备' does implicitly convey that the boolean toggles ready on/off, which partly compensates, but the default value and the meaning of omitting the field are left to the schema.

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 a concrete verb pair (ready / cancel-ready) on the player's own ready state, which is distinct from every sibling tool (play_cards, join_game, get_state, etc.). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the boolean parameter that performs the toggle.

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?

It states the operative context — when all players are ready the game starts immediately or advances to the next round — and gives a precondition (confirm players have joined/are present), which implicitly routes the agent to join_game first. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but there is no competing 'ready' alternative in the sibling list.

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