swu_move_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation of moving a card, but fails to explain critical side effects such as whether the card's ready state changes, if legal move validation occurs, or any permissions required. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 description is too sparse for a 5-parameter game-state mutation tool. It does not explain the 'ready' parameter, which is crucial for understanding how the card arrives in the destination zone, nor does it address session handling. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the meaning of source_zone and destination by enumerating example zones, and card_name via 'existing in-play card'. However, it completely ignores the 'ready' and 'session_id' parameters, leaving their purpose unexplained.

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 (Move) and the resource (existing in-play card or leader/resource), along with the zones (ground, space, resource, discard). This differentiates it from sibling tools like play_card or defeat_card, which handle different gameplay actions.

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: when an existing in-play entity needs to be relocated between zones. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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