set_game_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It says 'store' but does not specify whether calling again overwrites or appends context, whether there are size limits, if the context persists across sessions, or if any side effects occur. This lack of detail makes it hard for an agent to know how to use it safely.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence defines the purpose and scope, the second explains the benefit. Every word is meaningful.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, merging behavior, persistence). With 1 parameter and simple schema, it's missing key usage details that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (1 param with description). The description adds examples of what can be included, which aids understanding but does not go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: storing additional game context not parseable from save files. It lists specific examples like yields, military strength, cities, etc., which distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve or analyze data rather than store.

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 implies the tool is for adding context that will appear in strategy briefs, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use, if it should be called before or after other tools). No exclusion criteria or guidance on frequency.

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