declare_war

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It warns about public declaration, military cost, and diplomatic consequences, which is good. However, many mechanics are described with flavor text (e.g., 'barracks forge at HALF muster') rather than precise mechanics, and no output format is mentioned.

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 extremely long, rambling, and merges rules with flavor text. Most of the critical information is delivered via ALL-CAPS words and em-dashes, making it hard to parse for an LLM. It violates the principle that every sentence should earn its place; here, a single sentence has multiple clauses.

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?

While verbose, the description does cover many important contexts: the public nature of the declaration, the army mobilization, the diplomatic consequences (NAP, ally), and the need for a free front. However, it requires the LLM to read through dense prose and infer the actual prerequisite check, and the absence of any mention of the output format is an omission.

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 schema already has 100% description coverage for the three parameters. The description adds context about the war_goal being public and the need for a defender_kingdom_id, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It fails to explain the format of the parameters (e.g., UUID 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?

The description clearly states the tool initiates war against a kingdom, which is the primary purpose. It differentiates from peaceful alternatives. However, the core description is buried under extensive caveats and flavor text.

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 mentions checking get_attackable and GET /api/v1/actions/rules, implying preconditions. It is not clearly stated when to use this vs siblings; user must infer that this is for declaring war rather than attacking directly.

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