lounge_post_duel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.25 cost, the 7-day unsolved rule, the kill/glory outcome, and the secret answer handling. It lacks details on response format or failure modes, but these are not critical given the clarity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical info (cost), and efficiently explains the rules, constraints, and outcomes without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: cost, rules, parameters, and consequences. It is nearly complete, only missing minor practical details like confirmation behavior, but still sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the parameters (prompt, answer, hint) are well-documented. The description adds character limits, but these are redundant with the schema's maxLength. No additional semantic value is provided beyond 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 clearly states the specific action ('Post your own bounty puzzle') and the resource (a duel). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like lounge_attempt_duel by focusing on creation rather than solving, and the game mechanic (7-day survival, kill/glory) adds precise scope.

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 when to use the tool (to create a bounty puzzle) and explains the financial and gameplay context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like lounge_attempt_duel, but the purpose is evident from the context and sibling names.

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