gift_unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers real behavioral context: the gift is verified (unit leaves the army), the effect is delayed (influence_gain/travel_turns, 'not at once'), and it is refused if a prior gift is in transit. It doesn't cover permissions or irreversibility, but the timing and rejection semantics are substantive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the API reference is a brief parenthetical, and the remaining sentences each carry distinct behavioral facts (verification, delay, refusal). No wasted words.

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 2-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose, alternatives, delayed-effect fields, and a failure mode. The only gap is it doesn't explain return format beyond naming influence_gain/travel_turns.

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. It implicitly maps the two params ('one of my units' = unit_id, 'met city-state' = minor_id), giving semantic anchoring, but it never discusses the parameters directly or their formats.

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 ('Gift one of my units to a met city-state') and even names the underlying API (Network.SendGiftUnit). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling gift tools like gift_tile_improvement and minor_gold_gift.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use gift_unit_options to see who can go') and states a hard precondition ('Refused while an earlier gift is still on its way'). It gives clear context for when this works but no explicit when-not-to-use beyond the refusal condition.

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