minor_gold_gift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a return-state signal (`still_short` when the gift lands under the current ally) and the influence-vs-alliance nuance. However, it omits core mutation facts: whether gold is irreversibly spent, cost magnitude, and any permission/eligibility requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the crucial constraint and reply behavior. The backtick-heavy phrasing is slightly cryptic but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-param mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key `amount` constraint and one reply signal. It is adequate but leaves `player_id` semantics and the gold-spending cost unaddressed.

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 adds crucial meaning to `amount` (must be a small/medium/large tier from `city_state_gifts`), which the bare integer schema does not convey. It leaves `player_id` undocumented and does not enumerate the concrete integer values behind each tier, capping the score.

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: 'Gift gold to a city-state'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling gift tools like gift_unit and gift_tile_improvement, which gift different resources. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Provides a real precondition: check the tier's `makes_ally` before gifting, and warns that influence bought differs from an alliance when another major sits above you. It also points to the `city_state_gifts` sibling as the source of valid tiers, though it does not enumerate when-not to use it.

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