Accepts your opponent's pending draw offer in a chess game, ending the match as a draw. Provide the game ID to confirm the draw and update the game state.
Accept your opponent's outstanding draw offer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a precondition (an outstanding opponent offer) but does not disclose the resulting state change, whether the action is irreversible, permission requirements, or error behavior if no offer exists.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the action being described.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a game-mutating action with no annotations and an undocumented optional game_id parameter, the description omits key context about preconditions, consequences, and alternatives among sibling tools.
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?
There is one parameter, game_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention game_id at all, leaving unclear which game is targeted or what happens if it is omitted despite the schema defaulting it to null.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: accepting an opponent's outstanding draw offer. It clearly distinguishes this action from siblings such as offer_draw and claim_draw by specifying that it acts on an already-outstanding opponent offer.
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 phrase 'opponent's outstanding draw offer' implies the precondition for using the tool, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over claim_draw or other draw-related siblings, nor does it explain when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.