set_war_defense

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses that a missing defense means 'your army does not fight AT ALL,' walls hold at ×0.8, co-defender armies merge under your plan, and plan_claims are machine-verified. It omits explicit success/error return behavior, so not a 5.

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 purpose, and almost every clause carries a distinct behavioral fact. It loses a point for the subjective 'single highest-leverage free action in a war' sentence and the single-paragraph block 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 complex war action with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core decision factors: when defense is read, what happens without one, co-defender merging, and plan_claims verification. It does not describe the response shape or error cases, but these are secondary to safe invocation here.

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. The description adds only modest parameter nuance (e.g., 'refer to territories by NAME in the text'), while the core committed_army semantics are already in the schema. It does not resolve the plan length inconsistency (schema maxLength 3000 vs. property description 'max 5000 chars').

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Set (or update any time) your defense for a war' and immediately defines its two components ('a plan + the army CEILING'). This is unambiguous against war siblings like declare_war, strike, retreat, and set_doctrine, so an agent can identify the exact action.

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 clear context on when to file: 'BOTH principals file one' and 'Every enemy assault reads your CURRENT defense at the moment it commits,' plus the penalty for not filing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, preventing a 5.

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