change_ideology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key effects: adopting the preferred ideology, paying the cost shown in overview().public_opinion.switch_cost, anarchy turns, tenets kept, and refusal when the button is grey. It still leaves some behavior implicit, such as what happens to the previous ideology beyond tenet retention.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its cost/condition. Every clause adds relevant information and there is no wasted text.

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-parameter game action with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what it does, its cost, and when it is refused. It could be slightly more complete by explaining how to verify success or what changes after the switch.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the scoring baseline the schema cannot require additional parameter documentation. The description appropriately does not invent parameters.

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 action: adopting the preferred ideology that public opinion pushes toward, tied to the policy screen's Switch Ideology button. It is clear this is a switch action rather than initial ideology selection, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool choose_ideology for contrast.

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 gives a condition for refusal — the button is grey when there is no public-opinion unhappiness — which implies when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like choose_ideology or available_policies.

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