Play hand cards

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

Annotations mark the tool as destructive and non-readOnly, but the description adds the crucial behavioral note that it 'does not automatically retry.' This goes beyond the annotations and is important for the agent to know that failed attempts won't be silently repeated. However, other behavioral details (e.g., state progression) are not disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no filler. The key information (action and phase) is front-loaded, and the no-retry note is a valuable addition without unnecessary length.

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 action with two well-documented params, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what happens after playing cards (e.g., state change, score evaluation, or the need to use the returned state token). Given the state-token mechanism, this missing information could be critical for the agent's next steps.

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?

The input schema provides complete documentation for both parameters (distinct 0-based indices, required latest state_token), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('Play cards') and the context ('SELECTING_HAND'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like balatro_discard_cards. The title also reinforces the purpose, but it lacks detail on what 'play' entails in terms of game mechanics.

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?

It explicitly mentions the phase SELECTING_HAND, which indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusions, such as 'use discard instead when you want to remove cards.' The phase implication is useful but not fully elaborated.

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