End Battle

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds meaningful context: finalizing the battle also transfers character-owned facts like current HP back into durable character session state. It does not contradict the annotations and gives a useful picture of the mutation's side effects.

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?

One tightly written sentence, with the primary action front-loaded and the key side effect immediately following. Every clause adds information; there is no padding or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with a rich pattern-validated schema, a full output schema, and annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to end_turn and resolve_battle_act, but that is minor for correct 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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its format, source (create_play_session), and purpose. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Finalize') and a specific resource ('stored battle session'), and clearly explains the post-battle side effect of handing HP and other facts to durable character state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_battle, end_turn, and read_battle_state.

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 implies usage at the end of a battle when post-battle facts must be persisted, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative such as end_turn for mid-battle progression. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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