form_corps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the outcome (+10 CS and one unit), but omits critical details such as whether the original units are destroyed, if promotions carry over, or any costs involved. This lack of transparency leaves significant uncertainty for the agent.

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 long, front-loading the core action and requirements. Every sentence adds essential information with no wasted words.

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 is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema, but lacks detail on game mechanics (e.g., how combat strength works, what happens to the original units). Given the complexity of forming a corps and the absence of annotations, more information about effects and return values would improve 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 add parameter meaning. It implies that unit_id and merge_unit_id are two units, but does not differentiate them (e.g., which is primary) or clarify that they must be of the same type. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 action ('Merge'), the resource ('two same-type military units into a corps'), and includes specific conditions (same type, adjacent/stacked, requires Nationalism civic). It distinguishes from the sibling 'form_army' tool by specifying corps formation.

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 explicitly lists requirements (Nationalism civic, same unit type, adjacency/stacking), which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or scenarios when not to use, though the conditions indirectly address this.

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