resign_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether resignation is irreversible, whether it ends the game immediately, what happens if there is no active game, or any permission/auth requirement — only an editorial framing of the action.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of padding. The second sentence adds flavor rather than information, but it costs little.

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, but for a state-mutating game action with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the description omits irreversibility, preconditions, and parameter meaning — not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

Two parameters (reason, game_id) with 0% schema description coverage and neither mentioned in the description. There is no hint about what a 'reason' should contain, nor what happens if game_id is omitted (both default 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resign the game'), which is unambiguous against siblings like make_move or get_status. It does not explicitly contrast with the adjacent draw tools (offer_draw/accept_draw/claim_draw), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives tone ('the honest end to a lost position') but no operational guidance: it never says when to resign versus offering a draw, nor any precondition such as whose turn it is or whether the game must be active. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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