Click a choice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: it blocks until the game settles and returns the new observation, and that expected fails safely rather than clicking the wrong link. It omits error behavior and timeout details, but the synchronous-settle and return semantics are genuinely valuable additions.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and matching rule before the dialog note and safety guard. Minor restatement of the choice/label mechanics that the schema also covers, but no serious padding.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, matching rule, wait/return behavior, and the primary safety guard. Adequate, though it could note more on what happens on timeout or an unmatched expected value.

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 100%, so every parameter (choice, format, game_id, expected, allow_external) is already documented. The description paraphrases the choice and expected semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (click) and resource (a passage choice), and specifies the mechanism: 1-based number from the last observation or partial label text. The note that numbered choices include [dialog] buttons successfully carves it apart from UI-level siblings like click_ui and interact.

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?

Explains the primary usage context (driving passage choices and answering dialogs) and offers the expected guard for safe clicking. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it versus click_ui/interact, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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