move_spy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two real behaviors: the sentinel-value recall mechanism and that as_diplomat only applies when targeting another major civ's capital at peace, which is valuable. But it omits permissions required, what happens to the spy's prior assignment, and any failure conditions.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two special-case behaviors. No filler, though the recall and diplomat clauses are slightly terse and packed together.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 4 undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the two most unusual behaviors but leaves agent_id, permissions, and return effects unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 meaningfully clarifies target_player_id and target_city_id (via the -1 recall sentinel) and constrains as_diplomat, but agent_id and the normal-case semantics of target_player_id/target_city_id remain undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Assign/relocate a spy') and points to the sibling tool available_spy_cities for valid destinations. It is clearly distinguishable in intent, though it doesn't differentiate itself from stage_coup or spies explicitly.

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 provides useful invocation guidance via sentinel values (target_player_id=-1, target_city_id=-1) for the recall action, which is a genuine usage pattern. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stage_coup, nor any prerequisites before calling.

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