battle_end_room

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it delivers the core effects: ending the discussion, generating a conclusion, and leaving the room. It also adds an important non-autonomy guardrail. It stops short of stating irreversibility or the effect on other participants, which would make it fully transparent.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with the action, followed by the guardrail. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context for safe invocation. It could be more complete by noting that the action is irreversible or how the conclusion is delivered, but the core call conditions and behavior are covered.

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 single parameter roomId is fully documented in the schema as 'Full room URL', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed given the high schema coverage; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete multi-step action ('End the discussion, generate a conclusion, and leave the room') tied to a specific resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like battle_send_message or battle_get_status, even without naming them.

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 an explicit positive trigger ('only when the human user explicitly asks to end/stop/finish/leave') and an explicit negative rule ('Do NOT call this on your own'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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