Recipe Consume Tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the main effect (deducts each ingredient amount from stock) and advises checking fulfillment, but does not disclose whether it partially consumes if some ingredients are missing, whether it is reversible, or any error behavior. The mention of 'check fulfillment first' hints at a potential failure condition but leaves ambiguity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear secondary directive. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the core behavior and a prerequisite. However, it does not mention the existence of recipe_consume_preview_tool for dry-running, which could be helpful context, and it doesn't clarify behavior when ingredients are insufficient. Still, it is adequate for a straightforward consume action.

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 schema already documents the 'recipe' parameter (name or numeric ID). The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, staying at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'Consume stock for all ingredients of a recipe' and elaborates that it deducts each ingredient amount from stock. It distinguishes from siblings like stock_consume_tool (single item) and recipe_consume_preview_tool (preview only) by focusing on the actual execution.

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?

It provides a clear usage context ('as if you cooked it') and a critical prerequisite: 'Check fulfillment first to make sure all ingredients are available.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, the prerequisite implies a logical order. It lacks direct comparison to recipe_consume_preview_tool or recipe_fulfillment_tool.

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