purchase_tile

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

The description states the main effect (buy tile with gold) but does not disclose failure conditions (e.g., insufficient gold, tile not purchasable) or side effects. No annotations exist to fill this gap, so the description carries the burden. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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 very concise: a one-line summary, an Args block, and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and 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?

The tool has 3 well-explained parameters, an output schema exists (so return values are covered), and a prerequisite is mentioned. For a simple action tool, this is largely complete. Missing details about tile adjacency or ownership are minor given game context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing args and brief explanations: 'city_id: City ID', 'x: Tile X coordinate', 'y: Tile Y coordinate'. This clarifies what each integer represents, which is essential. However, it could include more detail (e.g., valid 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 'Buy a tile for a city with gold.' It specifies the action (buy), resource (tile), and context (city, gold). This distinguishes it from siblings like purchase_item (which may buy other items) and get_purchasable_tiles (which is for viewing options).

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Use get_purchasable_tiles first to see costs and options.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and provides a direct alternative, ensuring proper preconditions are met.

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