Discard hand cards

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), so the mutation is transparent. The description adds a useful behavioral note about checking the remaining discard count before acting, but does not disclose other consequences like card removal or state token requirement beyond the 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, front-loaded with the action and state, with no redundant information. It effectively communicates the essential guidance in one line.

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 simple discard tool with two well-described parameters, the description covers the necessary state (SELECTING_HAND) and a key precondition (checking discards). It could mention error handling or post-effects, but given the annotations and schema, it is adequately complete.

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 100%, and both parameters (cards, expected_state_token) are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action as discarding ('弃牌') in the specific game state 'SELECTING_HAND', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like balatro_play_cards. The title also reinforces the purpose. However, it could be more explicit about what 'discard' results in.

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 some usage context by specifying '在 SELECTING_HAND 弃牌' and instructing to '先检查剩余弃牌次数' (first check remaining discard count). This implies a precondition but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use, such as preferring play_cards.

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