submit_tactic_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 — but it does disclose non-obvious side effects: it plays the source reply (mutates game position) and schedules completed puzzles for review (persistent learner state change). It omits permissions, idempotency, and error behavior, so it is useful but incomplete for a state-mutating tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the main action front-loaded; no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the three comma-separated clauses compress distinct behaviors with little structure.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a state-mutating tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should at minimum define the move format and session requirements. Those gaps leave the definition under-specified for correct invocation.

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%, so neither 'move' nor 'session_id' is documented anywhere. The description does not state the move notation (SAN/UCI), whether the session must be pre-created, or how an invalid move is handled, leaving an agent to guess the primary input format.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (check a puzzle move) and two follow-on effects, which is far more specific than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings like submit_repertoire_move or submit_teaching_move, so an agent must infer the domain split from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative selection guidance. The description does not explain why an agent would pick this over submit_repertoire_move or submit_teaching_move, which share the same submit-move shape.

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