combat_end_turn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the effects: ending the turn early, incrementing the round after the last actor, ending combat under specific conditions (no enemy alive or no player character standing), and rolling each participant's held reusable marvel Usage Die upon combat finish. This is rich, specific, and covers multiple side effects.

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 longer than a single sentence but each sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then adds context about automatic advancement, specific effects, and end-of-combat behavior. No filler or redundancy; it is well-structured and readable.

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 tool is well explained in terms of behavior and usage, but the parameter is completely undocumented. The agent would not know how to correctly set actor_id (or if it can be left empty). The description covers most operational details but leaves a critical gap in parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description does not mention the actor_id parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it never explains what actor_id refers to, whether it is required, or what the default empty string implies. The term 'active actor' hints at the parameter's role, but the connection is not made, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('End the active actor's turn early') and immediately distinguishes it from automatic turn advancement. It clearly differentiates from siblings like combat_begin_turn and combat_attack by explaining that turns advance automatically when actions are spent, making this tool's unique purpose obvious.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'only for a combatant who stops acting with actions left' and gives concrete examples (holding back, hesitating, enemy not attacking). It also implies when not to use it ('Turns advance themselves when the last action is spent'), effectively ruling out normal turn progression. No explicit alternative is named, but the logic is clear.

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