gift_tile_improvement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden: it discloses that gold is spent and that influence changes (with before/after), and that an improvement appears. It omits prerequisites such as gold/influence thresholds or diplomatic state, so coverage is only partial for a mutation tool.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the constraint and the return summary. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description still summarizes the return (gold spent, improvement, influence before/after) and gives the key constraint. Only player_id semantics and explicit alternative-selection guidance are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that x/y identify a plot from gift_tile_improvement_options, but player_id (the target city-state) is left unexplained, so meaning is added for only two of three parameters.

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 object (buy/gift an improvement on a tile) plus the target (city-state), which cleanly separates it from siblings like gift_unit and minor_gold_gift. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly constrains usage by requiring x/y to be a plot drawn from gift_tile_improvement_options, effectively routing the agent to the prerequisite tool. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over other city-state gifts such as minor_gold_gift.

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