Select an earned promotion for a Civilization V unit by providing its unit ID and PROMOTION_ name to apply the upgrade.
Choose an earned promotion, using its PROMOTION_ name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit_id | Yes | ||
| promotion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the promotion must be 'earned' and that a PROMOTION_ name is required, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what happens after choosing. This is insufficient for a likely state-changing action.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary detail rather than achieving useful conciseness.
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?
Given two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It should explain both parameters and the behavioral consequences of choosing a promotion.
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 both parameters. It partially explains the 'promotion' parameter by mentioning its PROMOTION_ name format, but it says nothing about 'unit_id' or how the two parameters relate.
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 verb ('Choose') and resource ('earned promotion'), making the basic action clear. It does not distinguish itself from the many other 'choose_*' sibling tools beyond the resource name, but an agent can still understand the core operation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as available promotions or other choose_* tools. The phrase 'earned promotion' implies a prerequisite but does not explain the context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.