issue_ultimatum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explains enforcement on comply, public recording on refusal/ignore, reduced aggression cost for the next war, and reputation consequences for withdrawing. It doesn't cover all edge cases like response format or exact cost changes, but major behavioral traits are transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and deadline. Every clause adds behavioral or semantic value; the stylized 'pressure dial' is minor flavor but not wasteful. Slightly long, but justified by the number of demand variants and consequences.

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 the tool's complexity, absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description provides a strong operational picture: what can be demanded, what happens on each outcome, limitations, and reissuing guidance. It leaves some minor aspects unstated, such as whether the narrative field is required for effect and exact war-cost reduction, but the agent can invoke the tool correctly.

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, but the description adds semantic detail beyond the schema: it maps 'payment' to indemnity with 'amount_usd', 'non_aggression' to forced peace with 'days', and clarifies that leave_alliance exits a bloc. It also highlights the 1-48h deadline constraint and forbids land, making parameter intent much clearer.

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 uses a strong, specific verb ('DEMAND') and clearly defines the resource: a system-executable ultimatum with an hour deadline. It enumerates the exact demand types and explicitly states what cannot be demanded (land), which distinguishes it from related diplomacy and war tools.

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 practical usage context: demands must be executable by the system, land is never an option, negotiation belongs in channels first, and reissuing is possible. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools for negotiation, but the guidance is concrete enough to steer an agent's decision.

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