choose_ideology

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the enabling condition, that the choice is irreversible, that other civs' ideologies are public and drive pressure/unhappiness, and the return payload. It does not describe what each branch actually grants, but the consequential behavioral facts are present.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by trigger, valid values, consequence, and returns in one dense but non-redundant passage. Slightly packed with parentheticals, but every clause contributes information.

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 one-parameter, irreversible game decision with no output schema, the description covers trigger, legal values, irreversibility, downstream consequences, and the return values plus the follow-up tool (choose_policy). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema declares `branch` as a bare string with no enum, so the description's enumeration of POLICY_BRANCH_FREEDOM / ORDER / AUTOCRACY is the only place the valid values exist. It adds the essential meaning but does not explain what each branch entails.

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 and resource ('Choose the empire's ideology') and pins the exact game state that enables it. An agent can distinguish this from change_ideology and choose_policy without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when ENDTURN_BLOCKING_CHOOSE_IDEOLOGY is up (3 Factories or the Modern era)') and notes irreversibility 'short of a revolution', which implicitly routes later changes to change_ideology. It never names that sibling outright, so the alternative is inferred rather than stated.

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