submit_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that after submission, bots play out until the hero's turn again or hand ends. It lists valid actions and clarifies that 'amount' is required for bet/raise, which adds important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then an 'Args:' list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return values. It covers the core functionality and the auto-advance behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is only valid when it's the hero's turn, which would enhance completeness.

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 explains 'table_id' as target table, 'action' with the list of options, and 'amount' as 'total chips to bet/raise to' clarifying semantics (not increment). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 clearly states 'Submit the hero's action, then auto-advance bots to the next decision,' which specifies both the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'autoplay_bots' (auto-plays all) and 'advise' (gives suggestions) by focusing on submitting a specific action for the hero.

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 description explains the action submission and subsequent auto-advance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'autoplay_bots' or 'get_pending_actions'. It provides context but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidelines.

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