propose_peace

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

No annotations provided, so the description covers behavioral traits well: prerequisites, that acceptance is not guaranteed, and outcome dependencies. It implies the action is non-destructive and ends the war if accepted.

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?

Extremely concise: 3 sentences covering action, parameter sourcing, and conditions. No fluff, effectively front-loaded.

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 parameter, no enums, has output schema not shown), the description is fully adequate, covering purpose, usage, parameter, and outcome.

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 provides 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: 'The player ID (from get_diplomacy output)', telling the agent where to obtain the value.

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 action: 'Propose white peace to a civilization you're at war with.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'form_alliance' or 'respond_to_diplomacy'.

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?

It specifies prerequisites ('Requires being at war and past the 10-turn war cooldown') and mentions the AI's acceptance criteria ('based on war score and relationship'). It does not explicitly list alternatives but is clear on when to use.

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