stage_coup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the refusal path (`why_not`) and the outcome fields. It omits cost, cooldown, failure/detection consequences, or reversibility, so the safety/mutation profile is only partially characterized.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition, followed by the return/refusal contract. Efficient, though the parenthetical backtick mentions add slight clutter.

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 one-parameter game action with no output schema, it explains the prerequisite and the shape of both success and refusal results. The only real gap is the unexplained agent_id parameter.

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% and the single parameter agent_id is never explained in the description. The description references 'a spy' conceptually but does not tie agent_id to that spy or clarify its role, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource (stage a coup against a city-state's current ally) plus the gating precondition of a spy with established surveillance. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like espionage_intrigue or city_state_action, though it doesn't name an alternative 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?

It gives a real precondition (a spy with established surveillance, via spies()'s can_stage_coup), which functions as implied when-to-use guidance. However it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, leaving routing to inference.

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