Publicly condemn another civilization to worsen relations with them and their allies; this action cannot be undone.
Publicly denounce another civ. Worsens relations with them and their friends; cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player_id | 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 burden and does so well: it discloses two key behavioral traits beyond the name — that relations worsen with the target AND their friends (third-party effects), and that the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone'). It omits permission/auth requirements, but for an irreversible diplomatic action this is strong disclosure.
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 with the action front-loaded and consequences appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers consequences and irreversibility adequately. The remaining gap is the lone parameter's meaning, which neither the schema nor the description pin down, leaving the agent unclear on how to specify the target.
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% — player_id has only a type and title. The description's 'another civ' loosely identifies the target, but says nothing about how to supply the player_id, whether it is the civ name, index, or ID, or where the agent obtains a valid value.
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: 'Publicly denounce another civ.' This is distinct from siblings like declare_war, propose_friendship, and propose_deal. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of opting for declare_war, demand, or other diplomatic tools instead, nor any prerequisite for denouncing. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.