dispose_fixed_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the side effects: it creates a disposal record, updates asset status, and recognizes gain/loss. However, it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and whether the operation can be undone, which matters for a destructive financial write.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the confirmation requirement last; every clause earns its place.

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?

Purpose, side effects, and the confirmation gate are covered, but for a 9-parameter financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about gain/loss calculation inputs, error/permission conditions, or the result shape. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the disposal types already captured by disposalType; it adds no syntax, format, or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (dispose) and resource (fixed asset) with the disposal modes enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from the other fixed-asset siblings (search_fixed_assets, get_fixed_asset, create_fixed_asset, update_fixed_asset, run_depreciation).

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 directive ('Confirm with the user first') that tells the agent this is a consequential action needing user consent. It also scopes the disposal modes (sale/scrap/donation), but names no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition.

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