make_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('make a move') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, affects game state permanently, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of a game move tool (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies game state, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, with all parameters (gameId, move, offeringDraw) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining UCI format further or when to use offeringDraw. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an ongoing game' clearly states the action (make a move) and target (ongoing game), but it's somewhat vague about what type of game (board game, chess, etc.) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'make_board_move' or 'handle_draw_board_game' that seem related. 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active game), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'make_board_move' or 'resign_board_game'. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit context.

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