return_to_stockroom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful game mechanics: a vehicle unloads its trunk on arrival while a walking squad enters on foot and deposits carried resources. That is real behavioral value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about whether the order can be rejected, what happens to a squad already inside, or what the response contains for a mutation of this kind.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then behavior, then the parameter rule. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the vehicle/walking detail is slightly more than the minimum needed to select and call the tool.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the destination choice, and the vehicle-vs-walking outcome. The main omissions are the meaning of replace_orders and any note about the lease/control requirement, which the schema partially covers for lease.

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 29% across 7 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and it does so partially: it explains the semantics of stockroom_id (omitted means headquarters) and implicitly the role of vehicle_id via the trunk-unloading behavior. The remaining parameters, notably replace_orders, squad_id, and request_id, get no explanation anywhere, leaving a substantial gap.

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 gives a specific verb and target: 'Order a squad into a shared stockroom or headquarters,' so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs and what the destination object is. It is clear enough to distinguish from combat or movement siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to contrast with.

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 final sentence gives one concrete routing rule: omit stockroom_id to return to headquarters, which tells the agent how to switch between the two destination modes. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over other squad-moving tools, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing control of the squad.

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