city_state_action

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait — the call is refused with current state when the screen would not offer the action — which is genuine value. But it says nothing about the consequences of destructive branches like declare_war/bully_gold or permission/precondition requirements beyond the generic refusal 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the action enum and the refusal caveat. Efficient with minimal waste, though the action list could be formatted for easier scanning.

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 two-parameter mutation dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action vocabulary and refusal behavior but omits per-action consequences and the meaning of player_id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does list the valid 'action' values that the schema lacks (a real gain), but 'player_id' is left entirely unexplained — it is unclear whether it refers to the human player or the target city-state, which is a meaningful ambiguity.

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 (press) and resource (city-state screen button) and enumerates the six concrete actions, so the agent knows it is an action-dispatcher for city-states. However it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'city_state_actions' or from standalone tools like 'make_peace'/'declare_war' whose actions it duplicates.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. The action enumeration implies context, but the agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this versus the 'city_state_actions' sibling or the dedicated 'make_peace'/'declare_war' tools.

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