trade_request

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, and it discloses almost nothing: not what the target sees, whether a trade window opens, whether the request expires, or how to cancel it. For a stateful multiplayer action this is a significant gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action and its input front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral and usage context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a bare parameter, the description should explain the request/accept lifecycle and any range or online requirements. It omits all of this, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.

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 0% and the schema itself only says 'target: string', so the description's clarification that this is a player name is genuinely additive. However, it gives no format detail (exact spelling, case sensitivity, self-targeting) to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 (request) and resource (player-to-player trade) plus the input (player name). An agent can distinguish it from trade_accept/trade_reject as the initiating step, though the description never names those siblings to make the lifecycle explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (target must be online, in range), and no mention of the follow-up flow through trade_accept/trade_reject/trade_commit even though those siblings exist. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'Request'.

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