cheat_unlock_expedition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that this is an all-tiles bulk mutation and that a write lease is mandatory. It does not say whether the unlock is reversible, what happens if tiles are already unlocked, or what the call returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. No wasted wording, though the second sentence could be folded in more naturally.

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 cheat mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the action scope and the required precondition. There is no output schema to explain, and the parameters are fully described elsewhere, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema (lease from acquire_control, session_id from get_state). The description reinforces the lease requirement but adds no new meaning about format or sourcing beyond what the schema already states.

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: 'Unlock every expedition tile on the world map', which is clearly a bulk mutation of expedition tiles as opposed to the read-oriented sibling get_expedition_tiles. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from siblings like cheat_reveal_groups or cheat_scavenge_all.

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?

'Requires the write lease' gives a concrete precondition, implying this should only be called after acquiring control. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as cheat_reveal_groups for narrower reveals.

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