make_board_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, affects game state permanently, has rate limits, returns confirmation, or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the move (success/failure response, game state changes), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no context about valid move timing or game rules. The description should do more given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (gameId, move, offeringDraw) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Make a move in a board game' clearly states the action (make) and resource (board game move), but it's vague about which specific board game and doesn't distinguish from sibling 'make_move' which appears to be a similar tool. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resign_board_game', 'handle_draw_board_game', or 'abort_board_game'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, game state requirements, or timing considerations for making moves.

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