send_diplomatic_action

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: gold cost for delegations, possible rejection, tech prerequisite for embassies, and conditions for war types. This is thorough for a game action, though it omits potential cooldowns or limits.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, 'Args:' section, and additional notes. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but it is efficient.

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 complexity of the tool (many actions with different conditions) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects. It explains the purpose, parameters, and behavioral details, though it could note whether the action is performed immediately or queued.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that other_player_id comes from get_diplomacy output and lists all action values with behavioral notes (costs, prerequisites). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 and resource: 'Send a proactive diplomatic action to another civilization.' It lists all possible actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like form_alliance or propose_peace, which are for different diplomatic interactions.

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 mentions when to use this tool (for proactive actions) and includes important preconditions: delegations cost gold and can be rejected, embassies require Writing tech, war types have availability conditions. It also directs the user to get_diplomacy to see available actions, providing clear guidance.

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