build_structure

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

With no annotations, the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals several non-obvious behaviors: pricing and auto-charge, upgrade-tier semantics, single-main-building constraints, wall coexistence rules, and the special capital castle interaction. It could still go further by describing what happens to the existing structure, failure conditions, or result shape.

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 dense and information-rich, with the core purpose stated first and useful constraints following. It is slightly sprawling due to parenthetical webs and uses 'towers' where the schema says 'watchtower', but every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a complex build/upgrade mechanic, the description is impressively complete: it covers types, upgrade triggering, placement restrictions, mixture rules, and where to find tier prices. It does not specify success/error response shapes or ensure the agent knows exactly what happens when the payment is insufficient, but those are not road-blocking gaps for invoking the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics around the `building_type` enum: market affects dominion weight, barracks affects army/war, watchtower reveals, walls overlay, and castle is upgrade-only. It does not add meaning to `api_key`, and `territory_id` gets only indirect treatment via the capital-hex rule.

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 a specific action ('Build or upgrade on your territory') and enumerates the allowed building types. It differentiates the tool from repair/demolish through the upgrade language, but it never contrasts itself with the similarly named sibling `place_building`, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: building new structures or upgrading existing same-type buildings, with explicit rules about where buildings can go. It does not explicitly list when to use alternatives like `place_building`, `repair_building`, or `demolish_building`, so there are no exclusions but also no direct sibling routing.

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