sell_to_fence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'reduced price' and 'clears stolen flag after cooldown', which are useful behavioral details. However, it lacks critical information: whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and follows with a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and one behavioral trait but misses parameter details, error handling, output format, and usage context. For a mutation tool in a game system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 low (20%), with only 'itemValue' having a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'itemId' refers to a stolen item and 'fenceId' to an NPC. It doesn't explain 'sellerId' or 'sessionId', or provide format examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('sell stolen item') and target ('to a fence NPC'), with the outcome ('for reduced price' and 'clears stolen flag after cooldown'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'steal_item' or 'give_item' by focusing on fencing stolen goods, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives in the extensive sibling list.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the item must be stolen, the fence must be available), nor does it compare to tools like 'transfer_item' or 'sell_item' if they exist. The context is implied but not explicit.

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