choose_maya_bonus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a selection that consumes a reward, but never states permissions, whether the choice is permanent, what the reward actually is, or what side effects occur - only a vague 'verify' note.

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 compact sentence, but the parenthetical example and the dangling 'verify the reward was consumed' clause make it clunky and front-load the mechanic less cleanly than it could.

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 single-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain what a 'maya bonus' selection does and what happens after. It leaves the agent guessing about the consequence of the choice and the meaning of the verification step.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and no enum, the description does add value by revealing the value pattern ('UNIT_*'), an example ('UNIT_PROPHET'), and the source of valid values (maya_options). However it does not explain the semantics of the parameter beyond that format hint.

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 verb 'Choose' plus the resource 'an available UNIT_* from maya_options' and the sibling reference 'maya_options' give some differentiation, but the trailing 'verify the reward was consumed' blurs whether that is the tool's behavior or an instruction to the caller, leaving the purpose only vaguely grasped.

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?

Pointing the agent at maya_options implies a prerequisite (list first, then choose) and hints at where valid values come from, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing against the many other choose_* siblings.

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