choose_archaeology

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'verifies resolution' but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether this is a committed action or reversible, or what permissions/state are required. For a 3-param mutation-style action with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient, though it may be too terse for the complexity of the action.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry more weight. It provides only a minimal pointer to archaeology_options and coordinates, omitting workflow context, return behavior, and error conditions needed to invoke this correctly.

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 only explains that 'choice' refers to a choice ID from archaeology_options and that x,y are coordinates. It doesn't clarify the valid range of choice, coordinate conventions (tile vs pixel), or units, leaving the schema's bare integer types entirely undocumented.

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 ('Confirm a choice ID') tied to an 'archaeology_options' resource, which gives an agent a decent sense of purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'confirming' actually means in gameplay terms (selecting an artifact? resolving a dig?) and doesn't clearly differentiate from the sibling archaeology_options tool.

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 phrase 'at the completed dig's x,y' implies a precondition (the dig must be complete), but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the sibling 'archaeology_options' as the source of the choice ID. The agent is left to infer the workflow order.

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