Play move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it states the tool validates, can force illegal moves with allow_illegal, and reports legal and applied status separately. This is non-obvious behavioral detail beyond the bare 'play a move' title.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important conditional behavior and result distinction are packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a simple tool: it explains purpose, illegal-move handling, and result semantics. However, without an output schema or annotations, it should say more about the expected move representation and what exactly the returned 'legal' and 'applied' fields look like.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains allow_illegal semantics and hints that a move is a 'from/to move,' but it does not clarify the exact string or object format for move or mention game_id, leaving some parameter meaning to inference.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Validate and apply one submitted move.' This distinguishes play_move from siblings like edit_board or get_state by focusing on move submission and validation, not general board editing or state reading.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a move is submitted and needs validation/application. It also gives a conditional usage rule for allow_illegal, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like edit_board or state when play_move should not be used.

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