do

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: it explains that the first refusal (ok=false) halts the batch by default, that remaining orders land in `skipped` because the assumed state is now uncertain, that stop_on_refusal=false overrides this, that action_id replays already-executed orders on retry after a transport timeout, and that force seizes the turn from another client holding the seat.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and example, then ordered by importance (limits, refusal behavior, action_id, force). Every sentence carries information, though the two external cross-references (server instructions, end_turn) and stacked parentheticals make it denser than it needs to be.

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 batch-dispatch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (`results` with index/tool/result, plus `skipped`), the failure model, size limits, and the replay protocol. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and largely does: `actions` is defined as an ordered list of named-tool-plus-args orders with an optional action_id, stop_on_refusal is defined with its default-off effect, and force is defined as taking the turn from another client. Only the raw JSON default values themselves are left to the schema.

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 ('Carry out a list of orders in one call, in order') and immediately shows the payload shape with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from the many single-action siblings like unit_mission or set_production, which this tool batches.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (batch ordered orders), explicit when-NOT (wait_for_my_turn, finish_turn, end_turn, load_*, lua, do are not allowed inside), and the exhaustion rule (at most 40 orders). It also routes the agent to end_turn for the force-takeover semantics.

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