make_move_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Makes a move' and returns the new board state, but it doesn't specify whether moves are validated, how errors are handled, or whether the game state is permanently mutated.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, with args and returns clearly labeled. The phrase 'Could be used by the user or the AI' adds some fluff but is not overly verbose.

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?

The tool has a simple signature and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks information about validation and interaction with sibling tools, making it somewhat incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 description adds crucial context by stating the move must be in UCI format, which is absent from the schema. However, it doesn't provide an example or elaborate on the format, so it could be more detailed.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Makes') and resource ('a move for the board'). It also notes it can be used by the user or AI, which helps differentiate it from ai_make_move_tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like validate_move_tool or ai_make_move_tool. The only hint is 'Could be used by the user or the AI,' which is vague and doesn't offer exclusions or alternatives.

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