retreat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral consequences: captured tiles stay captured, army holds release, realm records the declaration, and re-declare cooldown starts. It also states it is free. The only omission is any mention of error handling, but the core effects are well-covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key consequences, followed by a contrast to the defender's path. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not describe the response shape or what happens on error (e.g., if the caller is not the attacker). While the main behavioral effects and usage conditions are covered, an agent might want to know return/status expectations. For a simple action, this is a minor gap, but it prevents a higher score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds beyond schema by explaining the war_id effect ('re-declare cooldown on this pair starts now') and reinforcing the attacker requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'End a war YOU started' with a specific resource (war), and explicitly contrasts with the defender's 'peace' exit, distinguishing it from siblings like declare_war and respond_war_offer. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'End a war YOU started' (attacker-only) and notes that 'The DEFENDER's exit is different: peace' – providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an explicit alternative interaction. This is strong guidance for agent selection.

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