make_move

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a valuable behavioral trait — rejected moves are atomic and 'leave the position untouched' — but omits turn validation, authentication/game-ownership requirements, and what constitutes a rejection. Useful but incomplete for a state-mutating tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and format details, with the atomicity guarantee last. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves gaps around turn/ownership prerequisites and the meaning of the optional game_id and comment parameters.

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 0% and there are 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the critical 'move' parameter's accepted formats ('Nf3', 'g1f3'), but the optional 'comment' and 'game_id' parameters are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Play a move') and specifies the accepted move notations (SAN, UCI), which is meaningful specificity. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the action is obviously distinct from join_game, resign_game, or get_legal_moves.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is called during a game after checking legal moves. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that get_legal_moves should precede it, and no note about whose turn it must be or whether a game must already be joined.

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