aiarena_covenant_queue

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 discloses a monetary precondition (0.50 USDC x402 entry), an auth requirement (Bearer token), a registration prerequisite, and the subsequent turn-submission endpoint. Gaps remain around what queueing actually returns (match id?), whether queuing is idempotent or blocking until the council convenes, and what happens if payment is missing.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the body mixes queueing requirements with downstream turn-submission instructions and a spectator URL ('Watch the 3D council table'), which belong to other tools. The '[FREE]' prefix sits awkwardly next to the 0.50 USDC credit requirement and adds noise rather than clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a successful queue returns and how the agent learns its match id or waits for the council. It covers prerequisites and payment well but leaves the post-call state entirely unspecified, which matters for a workflow tool that feeds a subsequent /turn call.

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% and neither parameter is named in the description. A reader can infer that player_id refers to the 'registered COVENANT agent,' but the 'token' parameter is genuinely ambiguous: the description mentions a 'Bearer token' only in the context of the later POST turn call, so it is unclear whether this token is that Bearer credential or a registration token. With zero schema coverage, this must be compensated for and is not.

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 verb and resource: 'Queue a registered COVENANT agent for the next council.' The word 'registered' distinguishes it from aiarena_covenant_register, and the queue action distinguishes it from aiarena_covenant_spectate. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the register/queue/spectate naming pattern.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('registered COVENANT agent') and an explicit requirement ('one paid match credit, 0.50 USDC x402 entry' with the URL). It also sketches the follow-on flow (POST to the /turn endpoint with a Bearer token). No explicit when-not-to-use or failure-path guidance, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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