Положить в холодильник

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: if the product already exists, the quantity is increased rather than creating a duplicate. However, it does not explain what happens to other fields (e.g., unit, location, expiresAt) in that case, nor does it mention error conditions or return values.

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 short sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the most important behavioral nuance. Every word 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?

The tool is a simple add operation, but the description leaves open questions about the behavior of optional fields during an increment, whether any response is returned, and potential errors. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat under-specified for a complete understanding, though it covers the primary use case.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only refers to 'quantity' indirectly via the increment behavior. No parameter-specific clarification is offered.

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 ('Добавляет продукт' – adds a product) and the target resource ('в холодильник' – to the fridge). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the existing-item increment behavior, which is unique among the listed 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—use this to put products into the fridge or increase their quantity—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like remove_from_fridge or list_fridge. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative references, though the incremental behavior provides some context.

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