steal_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it creates a provenance record with detection risks, NPC disposition effects, and heat decay mechanics. It clearly indicates this is a mutation with in-world consequences, though it doesn't specify permissions or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, bullet points for consequences, and a practical example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the core action followed by details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the theft's effects and heat decay. It covers behavioral context thoroughly, though it doesn't detail the return value or error conditions, leaving some gaps in full operational understanding.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example that illustrates parameter usage and relationships (e.g., witnesses as array, location context), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 specific action ('Record a theft event') and resource ('item'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'transfer_item' or 'give_item' by focusing on illicit transfer with consequences. It explicitly mentions creating a 'hot' theft record, which differentiates it from simple item movement tools.

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 implies usage context through the example and consequences (e.g., 'May trigger guard searches'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transfer_item' or 'give_item'. It provides some situational awareness but lacks direct guidance on tool selection.

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