battle_create_room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool creates and joins a room and imposes a required user-facing output step. However, it does not mention failure modes, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if a room with similar settings already exists.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the mandatory post-call protocol. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential action sequence and is therefore a minimum viable definition. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should also clarify optional-field defaults, the shape of the room info to echo, and error/retry behavior, which are missing.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level guidance. Schema coverage is only 60%, and maxRounds and maxParticipants are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent must guess their meaning, defaults, or acceptable ranges.

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 the tool's core action: 'Create a chat room and join it.' This identifies the verb and resource precisely, and 'create' inherently signals it is for new rooms rather than joining existing ones, though it does not explicitly name battle_join_room as the alternative.

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 gives explicit post-call instructions: output ALL room info to the user immediately, then call battle_send_message. This is strong usage context, but it does not state when to prefer battle_join_room or when creating a new room would be inappropriate.

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