choose_dedication

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action ('choose') without detailing side effects (e.g., whether the dedication is locked in, if it can be changed later), error handling for invalid indices, or any consequences. The basic action is clear, but important behavioral traits are omitted.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, parameter, and prerequisite. No extraneous information; every sentence serves a clear purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a simple one-parameter selection tool, the description covers the essential: what it does, the parameter's source, and the prerequisite. With an output schema present, return values are already defined. Minor gaps remain: no mention of success/failure outcomes or whether the action is repeatable.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'dedication_index' parameter. The description adds critical context: 'The index of the dedication (from get_dedications output)'. This links the parameter to the sibling tool's output, aiding correct usage. However, it does not specify valid ranges or 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 the verb ('Choose') and resource ('dedication/commemoration for the current era'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_dedications' (which lists options) by implying that this tool is for selecting after listing.

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 explicitly advises to 'Use get_dedications first to see available options and their bonuses,' providing clear prerequisite guidance. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the context makes it unambiguous.

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