Give an item

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description is consistent with that while adding real value: it spells out the stat deltas per item and the situational caveat for monster_energy. It still doesn't say what the response looks like or confirm that repeated calls stack, but the behavioral picture is good.

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 short sentences: purpose, per-item effects, inventory consequence. Front-loaded and every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, item choice, and side effects adequately. Only the return value and any repeat-use/cooldown behavior are left implicit.

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%, but the schema's only prose is the unhelpful "One of the known items." The description compensates by explaining what each of the three enum values actually does, which is exactly the meaning an agent needs to pick correctly.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource: "Feed or treat the companion." That is clearly distinct from siblings like femboy_write_diary_entry, femboy_headpat, or femboy_set_outfit. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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 per-item effects give solid guidance for choosing among the three enum values, including a warning that monster_energy is "pointless if she is already wired." However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus related siblings such as femboy_headpat or femboy_say, so usage is only implied.

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