end_turn

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and delivers: default-on quicksave (single-player only), the turn_claim refusal condition with owning pid/timings, the 180 s idle window, and that force=true seizes ownership. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a mutating, potentially contested operation.

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 the primary intent, then layered with operational detail. The sentences are dense but each carries real information; the description is on the long side but avoids padding.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers blockers, the diagnostic sibling, default side effects, refusal semantics, recovery timing, and the override — everything needed to invoke correctly and interpret a refusal.

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, and it fully does: autosave is explained as default-true, single-player-only insurance, skippable via autosave=False, and force is explained as the turn-claim takeover switch. Both parameters gain meaning unavailable in the bare 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource, 'End my turn,' and immediately scopes the operation by naming the blocker conditions (unit orders, research/production). However, it never addresses the close sibling 'finish_turn,' leaving the agent to guess which of the two terminates a turn — no sibling differentiation.

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 clear context: it may be refused, and it points the agent at turn_status to diagnose blockers. It explains the autosave default and how to skip it, plus the refusal/override path. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent when to prefer this over finish_turn.

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