refill_squad_member_ammo

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a mutating tool and does not meet it. It never says whether ammunition is consumed from the container, what happens when matching ammo is insufficient, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it requires exclusive control; only the schema's lease description hints at the control requirement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. Its brevity is the problem rather than its phrasing, but as a sizing judgment the sentence is efficient 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?

Six required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutating effect on game state demand more disclosure than one sentence. Key gaps remain around preconditions, consumption semantics, failure modes, and how the source enum selects the ammunition pool.

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 only 33% across six required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It alludes to 'matching ammunition' and a 'chosen container' but never maps to the source enum (cargo vs stockpile) and says nothing about lease, session_id, request_id, squad_id, or member_id; 'container' is also loose wording for an enum of cargo/stockpile.

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: refilling a squad member's weapon using matching ammunition drawn from a container. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic tools, but it never contrasts itself with the closely named sibling cheat_refill_ammo, so an agent cannot tell from the text which refill path is the intended one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (such as needing control acquired via acquire_control), and no exclusions or alternative named. The agent must infer everything about timing and preconditions from the schema alone.

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