sell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sequencing prerequisite, which is useful, but says nothing about the fact that selling mutates inventory by removing items, whether failures are possible, or how many items will be sold by default.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads. Minor noise from the 'tmw_shop_sell' internal-name reference, but overall efficient.

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 mutating sell tool with no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It should at least clarify the index/count semantics and what selling does to inventory.

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% for two parameters, including the required 'index'. The description never explains what index refers to or how count interacts with it, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Sell items to shop'), so the agent knows the action immediately. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool shop_sell, and the referenced 'tmw_shop_sell' does not exactly match any sibling name, leaving the relationship ambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: the sell list must be opened first via tmw_shop_sell. That is real when-to-use context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use this versus shop_sell/buy.

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