buy_city_plot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the gold cost and the coordinate-based purchase, but does not explain permissions, failure cases, irreversibility, or what changes in the game state after purchase.

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 no wasted words. The action and cost are front-loaded, and the supporting reference to city_screen follows 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with three undocumented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the purchase action and where to find valid plots, but omits enough behavioral and return context that an agent may still need to infer or discover important details.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that x and y are plot coordinates and that the city is identified by city_id ('this city'), but it adds no format, range, coordinate-system, or validation details beyond the parameter names.

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 resource: 'Buy plot (x, y)' with city and gold cost. It distinguishes the action from the informational sibling city_screen by describing the purchase itself, though it does not differentiate from other purchase-related siblings.

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?

It implies a prerequisite by stating that city_screen lists buyable plots with buy_gold, which tells the agent where to find valid coordinates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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