open_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses that this is a non-consuming status change and that it affects expiring_soon suggestions. It does not address reversibility or edge cases such as over-opening, but the core side effect is clearly stated.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the action, the second justifies it, and the bulleted Args explain parameters. There is no filler and no repetition of schema metadata.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough to select and call it correctly: purpose, rationale, and parameter meaning. It omits return/undo details, but those are secondary for this operation.

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 Args block is the only semantic source. It clarifies that product accepts a name, description fragment, or barcode, and that amount is denominated in the product's stock unit.

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 phrase 'Mark stock as opened' gives a concrete verb and resource, and 'without consuming it' explicitly separates it from the sibling consume_product. This is more specific than a generic 'open product' reading.

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 explains that opened items usually keep for less time than the printed best-before date and that flagging them helps expiring_soon stay useful, giving a clear use case. It stops short of naming an alternative like consume_product or listing explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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