Resolve Defiance

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

Despite annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description greatly extends transparency: it warns about a ValueError if called prematurely, declares it non-idempotent, details that it adds one debt card per roll taken (win or lose), and resets dice/roll-count state. It also fully explains return fields, including pattern meanings.

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 well-structured: a single-sentence summary first, then clear usage prerequisites, then a detailed behavior/return spec. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity (state mutation, error handling, and a rich return value).

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return dict (final_dice, rolls_taken, pattern, bend, debt_dealt) and the pattern value mappings. It covers the error condition, state mutation, and the ritual lifecycle, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' and no further parameter guidance is needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, and the description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that.

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 precise action: 'Lock in the current defiance dice as final, deal debt, and reset the ritual.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like defy_roll (the preceding step) and call_the_hand, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to call: after defy_roll has been used at least once and rolling is done (whether by choice or after three rolls). It also notes that a subsequent defy_roll starts a fresh ritual, providing clear sequencing.

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