abort_board_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Abort' implies a destructive/mutative action, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to game state/records, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of aborting a game, error handling, side effects, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a mutation tool in a context-rich server with many alternatives, more detail is needed to guide proper use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'gameId' parameter is documented), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify format, validation, or sourcing of 'gameId', nor does it mention any implicit parameters or constraints.

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 'Abort a board game' clearly states the verb ('abort') and resource ('board game'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'resign_board_game' or 'handle_draw_board_game', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific termination method versus alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resign_board_game' or 'handle_draw_board_game'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., who can abort a game, what game states allow abortion) or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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