swu_defeat_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the card is defeated and moved to discard, which is the key side effect. It does not mention error conditions or phase restrictions, but the core mutation is clearly described.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning about the tool's action and destination.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the context is incomplete: the description omits parameter guidance, prerequisites, and any mention of when this action is legal. An agent would not know how to correctly populate zone/card_name or whether this is a game-state-mutating action requiring a valid session.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'zone' via 'board or another in-play zone', but does not explain the default 'ground' value, how card_name identifies the target, or the role of session_id. Most parameter semantics are left unspecified.

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 the specific verb 'defeat' and clearly identifies the resource (a card from board/in-play zone) and the outcome (move to discard). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_move_card or swu_play_card by naming the game-specific defeat mechanic.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swu_move_card or swu_set_card_state. The usage is only implicitly inferable from the name and description; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are present.

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