consume_product

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates stock, raises an error rather than guessing for ambiguous products, and reports remaining quantity. It could mention undo/reversibility, but the core behaviors are clearly communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence in the Args section adds meaningful guidance, and the examples are brief but instructive. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 description covers all parameters, the main behavior, error behavior, and references list_stock for verification. It does not explicitly explain how this tool relates to sibling tools like out_of_stock or correct_stock, and it doesn't mention reversibility, but for a simple consume action it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains product matching rules, unit-sensitive amounts with a concrete example, and the spoiled flag's semantics. This goes far beyond the bare schema properties.

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 states a clear, specific action: record that stock was used up and report what remains. It is not a tautology and communicates the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like out_of_stock or correct_stock.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: consuming stock, with a spoiled flag for thrown-away items. It also directs the agent to check list_stock's qty when unsure, which is useful guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for different stock situations, but the usage context is clear.

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