concede

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It details a locking protocol with three phases, side effects like flipping GameStatus and logging forfeits, and calls to _note_game_over_if_needed. This is highly transparent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 detailed but somewhat verbose with a multi-line locking protocol. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the technical details could be more concise. Still, it is structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify return values, but it thoroughly covers the side effects and locking behavior. It is complete enough for a mutation tool, though adding return info would be better.

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%, and the description does not explain the single parameter 'connection_id' (e.g., how to obtain it or its format). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's name and type, which is insufficient for a required parameter.

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 'Resign the match — opponent wins immediately,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes concede from sibling tools like attack, move, or end_turn.

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 purpose is obvious: use when you want to resign. There are no explicit when-not or alternative instructions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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