set_avoid_growth

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 discloses that this is a toggle affecting a city checkbox and is restricted to non-puppet cities, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. The key operation is stated first, followed by scope and context.

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 two-parameter toggle with no annotations, no output schema, and no field descriptions, the description gives minimal but usable context. It is enough to select the tool and attempt a call, but leaves gaps around parameter semantics and behavioral side effects.

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% for both required parameters. The description implies city_id must refer to a non-puppet city, but does not clarify avoid=true/false semantics, valid ranges, or how the boolean relates to the checkbox state, leaving key parameter meaning 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 states a specific verb (toggle) and resource (avoid-growth), and narrows scope to one of 'my (non-puppet) cities'. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling city-management tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling alternative.

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 implies the tool is used for the city-screen checkbox and restricts operation to non-puppet cities, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like set_city_focus or city_task. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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