offer_draw

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious protocol fact: the offer is not self-executing and requires the opponent to call accept_draw. It says nothing about whether an offer can be withdrawn, whether repeated offers are allowed, or state requirements, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the dependency stated second. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves other dimensions under-served.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the accept_draw handoff is covered. Still, for a state-changing move tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is thinner than the interaction complexity warrants.

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 single game_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. Because coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it provides no hint about what game_id means or that it defaults to the current game.

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+resource ('offer a draw') plus the target ('your opponent'), so the action is immediately clear. It names accept_draw as the counterpart action, which helps separate it from the accept path, though it never distinguishes itself from claim_draw among the siblings.

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 implied: call this when you want to propose a draw, and the opponent must respond via accept_draw. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over claim_draw, when a draw offer is legal, or what happens if it is ignored, so the agent must infer the context.

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