set_auto_specialists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ownership/non-puppet constraint, but says nothing about whether the toggle overrides existing manual specialist assignments, whether it requires a specific game phase or permission, or whether the change is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is tight, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than ideal economy.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this is too thin. An agent learns the precondition but not the effects, prerequisites, or interaction with manual specialist assignment.

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 supply meaning. It conveys that 'automatic' is a boolean enable/disable toggle and that city_id must refer to an owned, non-puppet city, which adds real semantics beyond the bare 'City Id'/'Automatic' titles, but it gives no format or edge-case detail.

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 (enable/disable) and resource (automatic specialist assignment) with a clear scope constraint (owned, non-puppet city). It is distinguishable from the manual sibling change_specialist, though it does not name that sibling 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?

The precondition 'owned, non-puppet city' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as change_specialist or set_city_focus, and no note about what happens when the setting is toggled.

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