control_act

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the response encoding scheme (index<<16|cmd packing, -1 to decline a chain, hex raw bytes), which is useful. But it doesn't say what happens after submission, whether the prompt is consumed or seq must match a live prompt, what errors look like, or whether the two parameters are mutually exclusive at the API level.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the mutually exclusive input modes. There is no filler, though the bit-packing notation is cryptic without domain knowledge.

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 protocol-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition explains inputs well but leaves lifecycle gaps: how seq is obtained, whether a successful submit yields a new state or prompt, and failure modes. Adequate but not complete for a zero-annotation write path.

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?

It adds real meaning beyond the schema: seq is explained as identifying the pending prompt, i gets a concrete packing formula and a sentinel value (-1), and hex gets a worked example ('0100' selects card index 0). It also implies i and hex are alternatives, a constraint the schema does not encode.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Submit a response for the prompt with the given seq.' It's clear that this tool answers a pending prompt. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling control_act_id, which likely handles the same action by id, so the agent must infer the split.

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 is only implied: you answer a prompt after receiving one (presumably from control_wait_prompt). There's no explicit statement of when to prefer i vs hex, when to decline (-1), or when to use control_act_id instead. The parameter examples gesture at usage but don't spell out the alternative routing.

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