resign_board_game

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 action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, what permissions are needed, if it's irreversible, or what happens after resignation (e.g., game ends, score recorded). The description is minimal and lacks critical 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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication where 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after resignation, whether there are side effects, what the response contains, or error conditions. Given the complexity of game state changes and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 with 'gameId' clearly documented, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description doesn't provide additional semantic context about the parameter (e.g., where to find game IDs, format requirements), but with full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Resign a board game' clearly states the action (resign) and resource (board game), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'abort_board_game' or 'claim_victory' that might also end games, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool should be used.

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 'abort_board_game' or 'claim_victory'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be an active player in the game) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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