swu_set_card_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'update' without explaining side effects, whether the update replaces or accumulates values, failure conditions (e.g., card not in play), or any game-state impacts. The phrase 'while it is in play' hints at a condition but does not say what happens if violated. This is insufficient for a mutation 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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to read and not verbose. Every word earns its place. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, but as a standalone text it is appropriately sized for the limited information it conveys.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits how the card is identified (card_name, session_id), what 'zone' is used for, and what the output represents. Even with an output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context about the game state and the prerequisites for using this tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It mentions 'ready state and counters' which partially maps to ready/damage/shield/experience, but ignores zone, card_name, and session_id entirely. No parameter is explained beyond what its name suggests, and the mapping is vague. This leaves users guessing how to identify the card and configure the update.

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 action: 'Update a card's ready state and counters while it is in play.' It names the specific verb (update) and resource (card's ready state and counters), and the 'in play' scope differentiates it from sibling tools like play_card or move_card. However, 'counters' is slightly vague and could be more explicit about the specific parameter fields involved.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies use while a card is in play, but does not explain prerequisites, e.g., that the card must exist, or contrast with sibling mutation tools like defeat_card or move_card. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative tool reference.

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