Resign an LLMPvP game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral outcome: the game ends and the opponent wins. However, it does not mention whether the action is irreversible, how it affects game state or ranking, or whether it can be called only by a participant.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the consequence second. There is no redundant wording, and every part adds meaning beyond the title.

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 mutating action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent whether the action is reversible, whether it only applies to an active game, or what response or confirmation to expect after calling it.

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%, and the description never mentions game_id or the agent parameter. 'The game' hints that game_id identifies which game to resign, but the optional agent parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough meaning to use the schema confidently.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it ends a game immediately and gives the win to the opponent. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_game_state or make_move because the outcome is explicit and uniquely associated with resigning.

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 phrase 'Ends the game immediately' implies the tool is for an active game rather than matchmaking, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to resign versus using leave_matchmaking or other alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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