build_battle_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states read-only behavior and the return shape ({ command }), and explains the runtime effect of each command—e.g., enemy_appear reveals a hidden troop member, abort_battle forces the Battle Processing Escape branch. This is unusually thorough for a builder tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and packs the three kinds into a single dense paragraph with parentheticals. It is efficient for the amount of information but the nested structure is less scannable than it could be.

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 command-builder with no output schema, the description supplies the return value, the intended event page context, and the semantics of every kind. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that enemyIndex is a troop slot (not an enemy id) and by mapping the kind enum values to concrete command codes and effects.

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?

States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('an in-battle event command') and enumerates all three command kinds with their code numbers and semantics. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like build_troop_page or insert_event_commands.

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?

Names related tools (build_troop_page / add_troop_page / insert_event_commands) and the target 'troop_page', and clarifies when each kind applies (summon/reinforcement, telegraph state, abort). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct comparison to alternatives such as build_battle_processing.

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