demolish_building

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that demolition is FREE, limited to one main building per tile, unavailable during war, and details specific consequences for razing markets and barracks. However, it does not describe effects for the other allowed building types (watchtower, walls), leaving a gap in behavioral completeness.

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?

Three dense sentences, with the core action and scope front-loaded, followed by exceptions and consequences. Every clause carries distinct information: ownership, cost, tile-change semantics, castle exception, war restriction, and economic/military effects. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers ownership, limitations, timing restrictions, and notable outcomes. The main gap is the undocumented consequences for watchtowers and walls, and no mention of what a successful response contains, though with no output schema that is less critical.

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 covers the three parameters at 100% with descriptions and an enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that territory_id must reference an OWN building, that only one main building exists per tile, and by giving concrete building-type consequences that inform how to choose building_type.

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 the specific verb 'Raze', the resource ('one of your OWN buildings'), and the key constraint 'one MAIN building per tile'. It clearly differentiates this from other construction tools by explaining demolition is how a tile changes function (barracks → market) and explicitly names relocate_capital for the castle exception.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('demolition is how a tile changes what it does'), a direct alternative for the castle case (relocate_capital), and a clear when-not-to-use condition (closed during live war). This is strong, actionable routing guidance with no reliance on inference.

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