Update Battle Lifecycle

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context on top: operations are atomic, add/remove is only valid while the battle is active, and swaps depend on ally willingness. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 one dense sentence with no filler and it front-loads the core action. It earns its length given the multiplexed operation, though it could be slightly easier to parse if split into separate conditions.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. The description covers operation selection, key preconditions, atomicity, and the active-battle constraint. It does not enumerate failure modes, but the schema's enums and required fields convey much of that structure.

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 description maps high-level intent to operation categories, which helps given the complex union schema. However, with roughly 50% schema coverage it only partially compensates for missing parameter-level guidance; it does not explain candidateWitness tags, admissionSource, or ammunitionStocks, leaving those details to the schema.

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 states a concrete action ('Apply one Battle lifecycle operation') and enumerates the distinct variants: initiative swap, finalize initial setup, and add/remove combatant. This clearly differentiates it from sibling lifecycle tools like end_turn, end_battle, and start_battle.

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 gives situational context: swaps require a willing ally, finalization applies to initial setup, and add/remove is scoped to active battles with supported or installed sources. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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