cheat_heal_squads

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose two non-obvious facts: the operation is a mutation gated behind the write lease (an auth requirement) and it preserves current max HP rather than increasing it. It stops short of stating idempotency, behavior when the player has no squads, or any failure semantics.

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 short sentences with the effect stated first and the prerequisite second; there is no filler and nothing restates the tool name unproductively.

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 two-parameter, single-effect cheat with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers effect, scope, HP semantics, and the lease prerequisite adequately. A line about the expected response or effect on squads already at full health would close the remaining gap.

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% and both parameters already carry descriptions pointing at their origins (acquire_control and get_state). The prose adds nothing about the lease or session_id beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb ("Heal") and a precisely bounded resource ("every member of the player's squads") with the scope qualifier "back to full health (keeps current max HP)." That last clause separates it from a naive full-reset heal and from siblings such as cheat_refill_ammo, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 definition gives one hard prerequisite ("Requires the write lease"), which tells the agent a control lease must be acquired first. It does not say when to prefer this cheat over other state-changing cheats, nor what to do if the lease is absent, so usage is implied rather than guided.

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