respond_war_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains army commitment and reservation until war ends, the min_army constraint, defense vs attack consequences (grievance, shield burn, NAP void, alliance betrayal), and decline finality. This is exactly what an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Long but dense and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by structured consequences. The defense/attack breakdown is organized and every sentence carries decision-relevant information with 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 high-stakes mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the decision space thoroughly: how offers are found, what commitment means, side effects, and the set_war_defense prerequisite for defense. It does not describe response or error behavior, which is a minor gap given the complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema for accept (true/false semantics) and committed_army (required when accepting, must be ≥ min_army). It does not add detail for api_key or offer_id, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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?

States a specific action ('Answer a war recruiting offer') on a specific resource, and distinguishes itself from the listing tools get_war_offers and checkin by framing this as the response action. Accept/decline semantics are explicit and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context on where offers come from and gives detailed defense-vs-attack decision criteria, including consequences and prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for the same action, but the guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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