swap_great_works

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an exchange and states the refusal condition, but it omits other important traits such as irreversibility, what happens to the player's offered work, authentication/permission requirements, and what a successful result looks like.

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?

The description is two efficient sentences with the action front-loaded. The phrase 'Swap tab's Swap button' is somewhat redundant UI language, but overall there is little waste and the key constraints are easy to find.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisite and parameter provenance, but it does not describe the outcome or broader side effects of a successful swap. That leaves an agent with enough to attempt the call but not to fully predict its results.

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 does so by identifying the parameter's source (`culture_works().swap.theirs`) and adding a class constraint ('same class'), which meaningfully clarifies what value to supply beyond the bare integer type in the schema.

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 (exchange) and resource (great work), and it scopes the action to the civ-offered work identified by `their_work_id`. It is clear enough to distinguish from general great-work management, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool it is not (e.g., set_swappable_great_work).

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 clear prerequisite ('Refused unless we have a work of that class put up') and directs the agent to obtain `their_work_id` from `culture_works().swap.theirs`. This is strong contextual guidance, but it does not spell out when not to use the tool or name an explicit alternative.

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