place_building

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that placing is free (no payment), implying this action is non-destructive (unlike demolish_building). However, it doesn't disclose whether placing a building consumes the inventory item (removal from inventory), whether placement is permanent or reversible, or any requirements like territory ownership. The 'Free' note adds some value but significant behavioral details remain undisclosed.

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?

Single sentence with immediately actionable verb, resource, and context. The 'Free - no payment required' clarification is concise and front-loaded. Zero waste, efficient 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?

For a moderate-complexity action (placing building on territory) with fairly clear schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. No output schema exists, so return format is unaddressed. The main gap is not disclosing what happens to the inventory item after placement, what constraints exist (e.g., territory capacity, building requirements), or potential failure modes. Since this is a mutating action with no annotations, richer context would be valuable. Score 3 reflects basic sufficiency with notable gaps.

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 schema documents all three parameters with descriptions (api_key, inventory_id, territory_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The action verb 'place' implies that inventory_id must reference a building, but no further clarification of what form 'inventory_id' takes (e.g., a building type). Baseline 3 is appropriate for 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource ('Place a building from your inventory onto one of your territories') and distinguishes it from inventory action vs territory placement. It differentiates this from related siblings like build_structure (which implies construction) and repair/demolish. The 'Free - no payment required' note adds clarity. Score 4 because while clear, the description relies on the tool name and could further differentiate from build_structure and claim_territory.

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?

Implies usage context (placing an existing inventory building onto a territory) but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like build_structure, claim_territory, or get_inventory might be relevant but no explicit routing. The 'Free - no payment required' hints at cost expectations but no prerequisite guidance. Score 3 as usability context is implied but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.

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