trade_add_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful amount=0 default (whole stack), but says nothing about whether the item leaves inventory, whether the action is reversible, what errors occur if no trade is open, or rate/state constraints on a mutation.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the important default is placed in a parenthetical right where it matters. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the unexplained index parameter.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented. The description does not cover prerequisites or the effect on inventory, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently in the trade workflow.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'amount' well (0 = entire stack), but 'index' is left completely undefined — the agent cannot tell whether it indexes inventory slots, trade slots, or something else.

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 specific verb+resource ('Add an inventory item to the trade offer'), which is clear and distinguishable from siblings like trade_add_zeny or trade_commit. It stops short of naming the alternative operations, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus trade_add_zeny, or on prerequisites such as having an open/active trade or needing trade_lock before commit. The user must infer the flow from the other trade_* siblings.

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