appoint_governor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action and requirement, omitting details like whether the appointment is reversible, any side effects, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is relatively short but uses a structured 'Args' format. It could be more concise by integrating the requirement into the main sentence. The examples are helpful but take up space.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential input and prerequisite. However, it lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or how it relates to 'assign_governor'. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameter 'governor_type' is a string with no enums in the schema. The description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'GOVERNOR_THE_EDUCATOR (Pingala)'), which significantly helps the agent understand valid values. This compensates for the schema's lack of constraints.

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 clearly states 'Appoint a new governor' with specific verb and resource. It provides examples of governor types, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'assign_governor', leaving potential ambiguity.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires available governor points') and directs users to 'get_governors to see options', giving context. But it does not specify when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like 'assign_governor'.

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