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

Adds a critical side effect beyond annotations: drawing from inventory lowers that inventory's quantity. It also reinforces append-only behavior ('adds a record each time'), consistent with non-idempotent/destructive annotations. Does not cover permissions or what happens if both feed type and inventory are supplied.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the mutating nature and the core targeting, then the inventory alternative, then append semantics and endpoint. No filler.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the essential decision space (parent targeting, amount source) and the key destructive consequence. Optional fields like cost, date, unit, and per_head are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not complete.

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?

The schema already documents type, amount, per_head, parent_id, inventory_id, and inventory_location_id, so much of the description's routing information is a synthesis of existing schema text. It does clarify the either/or relationship between feed type and inventory parameters, but says nothing about cost, date, unit, or description fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('record a feeding for an animal or livestock group') and scopes it to the two parent types, making it distinguishable from list_feedings and other create_* siblings. The explicit WRITE prefix and endpoint reinforce exactly what the tool does.

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?

Gives a clear usage decision: either name the feed type or supply inventory_id + inventory_location_id to draw from stock. This tells the agent which call pattern to choose, though it does not state when to avoid the tool or name an alternative (e.g., list_feedings for viewing).

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