make_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Place your mark') but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it validates moves, handles errors, updates game state, or requires specific conditions (e.g., valid turn). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the action and provide necessary positional information. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a game move tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, game rules, or return values, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly in a tic-tac-toe context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'move' parameter with examples. The description adds minimal value by listing the positions (A1-A3, B1-B3, C1-C3), which clarifies the format but doesn't go beyond what the schema implies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Place your mark') and the resource ('on the tic-tac-toe board'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't need to differentiate from siblings since there are none, but it could be slightly more precise about what 'your mark' means (e.g., X or O).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., game state, turn order), alternatives (none exist here), or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context for its application.

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