set_swappable_great_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that -1 is a clearing sentinel and where candidates are drawn from, but says nothing about reversibility, permission/prerequisite conditions, or what the swap slot state looks like after the call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the clearing rule and candidate source. Some phrasing ('Swap tab pull-down') is interface jargon that costs clarity without adding much.

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 two-parameter game action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but leaves work_id's positive-value semantics and the relationship to swap_great_works unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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. It supplies the enum for work_class (absent from the schema) and explains work_id = -1 as a clear sentinel, but never explains what a positive work_id refers to or how it relates to the candidates list.

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 (put a work up for swapping / clear the spot) and resource (a great work of a given class), and enumerates the work_class values (writing / art / artifact), which is more than the schema gives. It doesn't clearly separate itself from the sibling swap_great_works, so an agent still has to infer the division of labor.

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 '-1 to clear that spot' clause is genuine usage guidance for one parameter value, and pointing at culture_works().swap.ours[class].candidates tells the agent where candidates come from. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs swap_great_works guidance, so routing between the two swap tools is left to inference.

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