declare_war

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses irreversibility ('can't make peace again immediately') and that it skips the leader-head confirmation screen, but omits consequences (warmonger penalties, effects on other civs), any confirmation/return behavior, and permission requirements.

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?

Three compact clauses with the action and its main consequence front-loaded; every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 an irreversible, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the precondition and the key irreversible trait but leaves out downstream effects and the meaning of the sole parameter, so an agent still has gaps before invoking it confidently.

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 single parameter player_id is never named or described. The phrase 'on a civ I have met' does imply the parameter identifies the target civilization, but the description adds no format or constraint details beyond that inference.

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 ('Declare war on a civ') with a precondition ('I have met'), which clearly separates it from the sibling make_peace. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

The precondition 'a civ I have met' implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no pointer to alternatives like make_peace or war_consequences for related actions.

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