swu_take_game_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that taking an action likely mutates game state, what happens on invalid actions, or any side effects. It also fails to clarify whether it requires certain conditions (e.g., priority, phase). This is a significant gap for a game action 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 concise sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to stating the basic purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Take' and the resource 'game action', followed by examples. This is a model of efficiency, though it sacrifices 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, varied action types), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain how to construct a valid request, which parameters are needed for each action type, or any behavioral nuances. The output schema exists but the description alone leaves the agent with many open questions.

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 explain parameters. It lists some valid values for the 'action' parameter, but provides no explanation of the other 8 parameters (card_name, destination, source_zone, target_name, etc.) or how they relate to specific actions. The 'action' parameter itself is not formally documented in the schema beyond a default empty string.

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 tool's purpose: 'Take a game action' and lists specific action types like resource, play, and attack. This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish this generic action tool from dedicated sibling tools like swu_play_card or swu_resource_phase, which cover some of the same 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that handle specific actions (e.g., swu_play_card, swu_resource_phase). There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites or alternatives.

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