move_unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the unit is selected like the unit panel, that orders route through the game's network path, and critically that an existing conditional order is taken back and pauses. These are real side effects not visible in the schema, though permissions and failure modes on invalid plots are unstated.

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 destination, followed by behavioral caveats. No padding, though the parenthetical clauses are slightly dense.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers the essential action and the give_order side effect adequately. It still leaves gaps on parameter sourcing and error/edge behavior.

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 identifies x/y as a plot coordinate and unit_id as 'one of my units', adding meaning over the bare integer types, but gives no guidance on valid ranges or how to obtain a unit_id.

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 (move) and resource (unit) plus the destination form (plot x, y). It distinguishes itself from give_order and unit_mission by framing itself as the direct 'right-click' move. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases.

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 explains the interaction rule with conditional orders (a give_order unit is taken back and paused), which routes the agent contextually. However, it never states when to choose move_unit over unit_mission or give_order, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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