swap_bro

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it delivers the most critical disclosure: the tool 'kills the current bro', making the destructive nature unmistakable before invocation. It also reveals the mod intesgration and direct-game-manipulation fallback. It loses a point because 'direct game manimulation' is left vague — the agent gets no sense of what risks or state divergences that path might introduce.

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?

Three sentences with each earning its place: core purpose with scope, destructive mechanics, then implementation detail. It is front-loaded — the most important fact (kill-and-swap) appears in the first two sentences — and contains no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 destructive consequence and fallback behavior are covered, which matters given there are no annotations. But with no output schema and no result contract, the description leaves out what the agent should expect after invocation — success/failure reporting, error behavior for an invalid broName, and whether the swap is recoverable. For a destructive tool these are meaningful gaps.

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 coverate is 100%, and both parameter descriptions are already informative: broName includes concrete examples and routes to list_bros, while playerNum specifies the 0-3 range and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Swap the current player's bro') with a scope qualifier ('mid-level'), and the second sentence grounds the operation further by explaining the mechanics: kills the current bro and spawns the new one at the same position. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool set_bro, which an agent could plausibly confusee with this 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 'mid-level' qualifier implies this tool is for mid-play swaps rather than setup-time assignment, and the mod/fallback remark indicates it works across envionments. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives — notably set_bro is a sibling that likely handles non-destructive bro assignment, and the description gives no criterion for choosing between them.

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