set_unit_stance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well documenting stance semantics (pursuit ranges, fleeing triggers), but says nothing about permissions, whether the change is immediate or persistent, what happens on invalid input or dead entities, or error behavior.

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?

One line of enumeration followed by compact per-stance definitions; every clause earns its place and the behavioral detail is front-loaded. The opening sentence is slightly awkward in phrasing but not wasteful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tricky half (stance values and meanings) but leaves entity_ids semantics, return behavior, and failure modes unaddressed. Adequate but with clear remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It supplies the otherwise undocumented valid values for the stance parameter (violent, aggressive, defensive, passive, standground, skittish), which is exactly the gap the enum-less schema leaves; entity_ids is left entirely unexplained, keeping it from a 5.

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 tool name plus the opening list makes the operation clear: it sets a unit stance to one of six named options. It is specific about the resource (unit stance) but the verb is only implied by the name, and no sibling is named to sharpen the boundary against stop_units or order_units.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. However, the per-stance behavior list implicitly tells the agent which stance fits a situation, which is meaningful selection help without being guidance about the tool itself.

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