change_working_plot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral load and does so reasonably: it explains the toggle semantics, that forced-worked tiles stay locked until clicked again, and that puppet cities refuse the action. It omits failure modes (e.g. invalid plot, already-owned tile) and any return/confirmation behavior.

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 core action followed by the analogy and edge-case rules. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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 simple toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and key edge cases (forced tiles, puppets). It is still incomplete on parameter validity and on what the result signals, which matters given zero schema coverage.

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 compensate. It clarifies that x and y are plot coordinates belonging to the target city, which adds real meaning over bare integer parameters, but gives no ranges, validity rules, or confirmation that city_id must be the controlling city.

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+resource: toggling whether a city works a given plot (x, y), with the clear analogy of clicking a tile in the city screen. An agent can distinguish it from plot-related siblings like buy_city_plot, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 city-screen analogy and the 'puppets refuse' note imply usage context, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing against siblings such as city_screen or buy_city_plot. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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