Set citizen focus for a non-puppet city to choose balanced, food, production, gold, science, culture, great people, or faith.
Set citizen focus on one of my (non-puppet) cities. focus is one of: balanced, food, production, gold, science, culture, great_people, faith. Same as the city-screen focus buttons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | Yes | ||
| city_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the focus change takes effect immediately or on the next turn, whether it is persistent, what happens to existing specialist assignments, or what the response looks like. The 'Same as the city-screen focus buttons' hint is helpful but skeletal.
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?
Two compact sentences that front-load the action and scope, then immediately provide the required enumeration and a useful analogy. No wasted words.
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?
The tool is a state-changing action with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers the critical 'focus' enumeration but leaves 'city_id' unexplained and omits any behavioral notes about persistence or side effects. 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% with two parameters, so the description must compensate. It successfully enumerates the eight allowed values for the 'focus' parameter, which is critical. However, the 'city_id' parameter is completely unexplained – the description does not clarify its format or how to discover valid IDs.
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 (Set) and resource (citizen focus) scoped to 'one of my (non-puppet) cities,' and enumerates the eight valid focus values. The clause 'Same as the city-screen focus buttons' anchors the tool to a known UI action, distinguishing it from siblings like set_production or change_specialist.
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 parenthetical '(non-puppet)' implies a scope restriction, and the description effectively says to use this when you want to set a city's focus. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for puppet cities).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.