flux_resign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions the 120s stall condition but does not disclose consequences of resigning (e.g., game ends, irreversible action, potential rating impact). The description gives some context but lacks depth about side effects or prerequisites.

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 zero redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action and the optional override condition.

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?

The tool has one optional param and no output schema, so the description is the main source of context. It explains the two actions but omits important behavioral details like irreversibility, effect on the game room, or how the stall is detected. For a mutation, more completeness would be expected.

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 only parameter claim_stall is described in schema, but the description adds the specific deadline (120s) and clarifies the alternative action. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the added 120s detail raises it to 4.

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 a specific verb ('Resign') and resource ('current game'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the alternative action ('claim a win if the opponent stalled past the 120s deadline'). It is unambiguous and distinct from the other flux tools.

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 the primary use (resign) and the conditional secondary use (claim a stall win after 120s), giving clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like flux_move, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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