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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: no energy cost, action-slot/turn-budget consumption, and the critical destructive semantic that items are DESTROYED and never dropped or transferable. This is exactly the context needed before an irreversible mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, cost/limit second, destructive consequence third, with the fallback rationale last. Every clause earns its place and the key warning is capitalized for salience.

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 destructive, annotation-free write tool with no output schema, the description covers consequence, cost, and safe alternatives adequately. It stops short of stating what the response returns (e.g., remaining capacity), but nothing needed to call it safely is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the 'items' parameter already documents the {"stone": 5} shape, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, though the destruction caveat implies quantities consumed irreversibly.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('discard items from your pack') with a stated goal (free carry capacity) that clearly separates it from siblings like trade, deposit, and withdraw, which handle goods differently.

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 frames itself as 'the escape hatch for a wedged inventory: full pack, nothing edible, no storehouse in reach,' and names the alternatives ('use trade or a storehouse to move goods'). When-to-use is unambiguous.

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