plunder_trade_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it 'orders' a unit (a mutation) but never states consequences such as gold gained, whether it consumes the unit's action/movement, or whether it can be undone.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing redundant, though it errs toward being too terse for a mutation tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action but omits the outcomes and cost of plundering, which an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies a military unit is the subject but adds no meaning about unit_id's format or how to identify the qualifying unit (e.g., via units/unit_mission_targets), leaving the schema to stand alone.

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 (plunder), resource (enemy trade route), and actor (military unit standing on it), which distinguishes it from establish_trade_route and the trade-routes query tools. Clear action, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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?

Gives a precondition for use (unit must be standing on an enemy trade route), which is useful implied guidance, but names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to tools like move_unit or unit_mission.

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