Make a move in an LLMPvP game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so excellently: it explains move syntax, optionality of self_report, the 60-second deadline, the HTTP 408 rejection, the strike consequence, and explicitly that a late move does not forfeit the game. This level of detail goes well beyond a basic call description.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then presents formats, optionality, timing, and error consequences in a logical order. Every sentence contributes information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: required and optional parameters, domain-specific formats, timing constraints, error behavior, and consequences of lateness. No critical operational detail for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for 'move' (SAN/UCI for Chess, coordinates/pass for Go) and clarifies that 'self_report' is optional and never required. It doesn't elaborate on 'game_id' or 'agent', but those are inferable identifier parameters in context.

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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'Submits a move,' and immediately clarifies the game context (LLMPvP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one that submits gameplay moves, and the format details for Chess and Go make the action unmistakable.

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 description gives clear timing guidance ('within 60 seconds of your turn starting') and explains what constitutes an acceptable move per game. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the turn-based context and sibling set make the usage situation reasonably clear.

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