swu_play_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals the core movement of cards but omits critical game-state implications: whether it mutates state, consumes resources, triggers effects, requires legal play, or is reversible. For a game action tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 that communicates the essential action and zones. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 the presence of an output schema, the tool performs a complex, mutating game action with 8 parameters and no annotations. The one-sentence description does not cover parameter usage, legality, side effects, or how the modifiers apply. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional clues.

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%, and the description only partially compensates by enumerating source_zone and destination values. It does not explain the meaning of ready, damage, shield, card_name, experience, or session_id. An agent cannot infer how these parameters affect play action.

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 identifies the action ('Play or deploy'), the resource ('a card'), and the source/destination zones ('hand, discard, or leader zone' into 'ground, space, or resources'). This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_move_card or swu_defeat_card.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as swu_move_card, swu_resource_phase, or swu_set_card_state. There is no mention of prerequisites, legality checks, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.

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