submit_repertoire_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the move must be 'legal' but does not describe what happens on success or failure, whether the session must be active, what response is returned, or any side effects. While 'legal move' implies validation, critical behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It is concise but perhaps too terse given the complexity of the tool, though the structure itself 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 that the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it still lacks essential context for using the tool correctly: no annotation coverage, no parameter documentation, and no guidance on interaction with sibling tools (e.g., create_repertoire_drill, get_repertoire_move). The description is incomplete for a mutation tool in a complex domain.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any description in the schema. The description does not explain the format of 'session_id' (e.g., how to obtain it) or the expected notation for 'move' (e.g., SAN, UCI). With two required parameters and no supporting documentation, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 states a specific verb (submit) and resource (repertoire move), which gives a clear sense of the action. However, it is almost identical to sibling tools like submit_tactic_move and submit_teaching_move, and the description does not differentiate this tool from those or from get_repertoire_move. The purpose is understandable but lacks the differentiation needed to confidently choose among siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_tactic_move, submit_teaching_move, or get_repertoire_move. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., after starting a repertoire drill), or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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