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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the 'absolute, not delta' semantics of quantity, which prevents a common misuse, but it says nothing about partial-update behavior (whether omitted fields are preserved) or the consequences of changing unit/unitWeightG.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the high-value edge case (quantity 0) front-loaded. No filler or repetitive restatement of the tool name.

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?

Adequate for a destructive, 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, but incomplete: it doesn't state that unspecified fields remain unchanged, nor explain interactions between unit, unitWeightG and quantity, which matter for a pantry-stock correction tool.

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 only 33% across 9 parameters, and the description compensates partially by naming location, best-before and note as updatable and by clarifying quantity is an absolute value. It leaves unit, label, unitWeightG and staple entirely undocumented, so the agent must open the schema to understand a third of the surface.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Correct') and resource ('a pantry item') and enumerates the editable attributes: quantity, storage location, best-before, note. An agent can distinguish it from joiva_add_pantry_item and joiva_remove_pantry_item, though it never names the nearest siblings (consume/update_shopping_item) explicitly.

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 verb 'correct' implies the use case (fixing an existing entry) and the 'quantity: 0 marks it as used up' hint gives a concrete scenario. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to joiva_consume_pantry_item, which is the obvious alternative for reducing stock — leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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