choose_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only states that a choice is made. It does not disclose whether the choice advances the scene, whether it is reversible, whether the session state changes, or what response shape to expect beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, though it could benefit from a short second sentence clarifying the source of action IDs.

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 is fairly simple and an output schema exists, but the description leaves important operational gaps: where action IDs come from, whether adventure_session_id is required from context, and what selecting an action triggers. Given two required parameters and zero schema coverage, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only lightly hints at choice_id through 'action IDs', which helps slightly, but it completely fails to explain adventure_session_id, its format, or how it relates to the current scene.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Choose') and resource ('action IDs offered by the current scene'), so an agent can infer this selects from available scene actions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like use or examine, but the wording is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool should be used when the current scene offers action IDs and the agent must pick one. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to siblings, such as whether use is for applying items versus selecting a narrative action.

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