choose_faith_great_person

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only the locational detail that the great person appears in the capital or holy city. It does not disclose whether the choice is irreversible, what resource or pool it consumes, what permissions are needed, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter selection tool, though the parenthetical could be folded more cleanly into the main clause.

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 one-param selector with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the bare minimum: what to pass and where the options come from. It omits the consequence of the action and any preconditions, leaving the agent slightly under-informed but able to call the tool.

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 for the single 'unit' parameter. It partially does by indicating the value should be one entry from faith_great_person_options, which tells the agent where valid identifiers come from, but it gives no format, type, or example of the identifier itself.

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 verb ('take') and points at the source of valid values (faith_great_person_options), which helps tie it to its sibling options tool. However, the phrasing 'one unit type' is imprecise for a Great Person selection tool and never states the effect of choosing (spawning the great person in the capital/holy city). It is distinguishable from siblings only via the referenced options tool, not by an explicit statement of what the tool accomplishes.

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?

Sort of implies the prerequisite that faith_great_person_options must be consulted first, since the value is taken from that list. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of alternatives like choose_free_great_person, and no note about timing or turn conditions.

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