make_peace

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

With no annotations the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the immediate AI reply (accepted, reply, at_war), that an AI may refuse for a while after a declaration, that a human seat receives a pending proposal, and the locked-war refusal path. It omits permissions/rate-limit style constraints but covers the key outcomes.

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-loads the core action and stays information-dense with no filler sentences. The parenthetical enumerations and nested clauses make it slightly dense, but every clause adds actionable detail.

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, and the description supplies the return shape (accepted, reply, at_war, pending) plus the human-seat proposal flow. For a two-parameter diplomacy tool with no annotations, nothing essential to correct invocation 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 it does for `items` by enumerating term types (GOLD, GOLD_PER_TURN, RESOURCES, CITIES, THIRD_PARTY_WAR/PEACE) and explaining from_us. player_id is left unelaborated, but its meaning is obvious from context.

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+resource ('Offer peace to a civ I'm at war with') and the channel it uses ('through the real trade screen'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling propose_deal by noting any propose_deal while at war is the same peace deal.

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?

The condition for use is clear (you are at war and want peace), and it points to accept_deal/refuse_deal for human seats and trade_catalog(player_id).peace for lock reasons. No explicit when-not, but the routing to alternatives is mostly present.

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