enhance_religion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the popup/blocking precondition and that custom_name is ignored unless the game asks for one, which is useful mutation context. However, it does not state permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the blocking condition is not met.

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?

The description is a single dense but front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and then provides parameter mappings. It avoids filler, though the cryptic game terms and semicolon-separated clauses reduce readability.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the special popup precondition and most parameter roles. It still omits the meaning/format of the religion argument and the outcome of a successful or invalid call, leaving gaps an agent may need to resolve.

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 explain the six parameters. It maps belief4 to a follower belief, belief5 to an enhancer belief, and city_x/city_y to the holy city in the pending popup, and notes custom_name behavior. It leaves the required religion parameter and the popup data1/data2 mapping opaque.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: enhancing a founded religion by assigning belief4 and belief5 in a particular holy city. It also ties the operation to the pending BUTTONPOPUP_FOUND_RELIGION, distinguishing the enhancement step from founding. It does not explicitly name found_religion as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is present but not fully explicit.

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?

It gives a clear validity gate: only valid when blocking_name is ENDTURN_BLOCKING_ENHANCE_RELIGION, and it points to available_beliefs for selecting beliefs. This tells the agent when the tool is usable, though it does not provide broader when-not or alternative guidance beyond that gate.

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