set_production

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key mutation semantics (replace vs. queue) and the return shape ('the reply lists the whole `queue`'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It omits permission/auth prerequisites and what happens to a partially-built item when replaced, leaving some gaps.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then item syntax, then the append distinction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that the reply returns the full queue. For a simple 3-parameter mutation tool this is nearly complete; only permission requirements and the fate of an in-progress build are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents valid `item` value patterns (UNIT_*, BUILDING_*, PROJECT_*, PROCESS_*) and fully specifies the non-obvious `append` flag semantics. Only `city_id` is left implicit, which is self-evident from its name.

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 and resource ('Set a city's production') and enumerates the valid item categories, which distinguishes it from remove_from_queue and purchase_production. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 append flag is explained in operational terms: append=true queues behind the current build (the shift-click equivalent) rather than replacing it. This gives clear context for choosing between the two modes, though no alternative tools (e.g. remove_from_queue, available_production) are named.

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