remove_tea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that built-in teas are reversibly marked as consumed, self-purchased teas are directly deleted, and names use fuzzy matching. It does not mention no-match handling or whether the action is logged, but core safety-relevant behavior is covered.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the trigger phrase and packs in operation, conditional behavior, restoration path, and match semantics. There is no filler 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?

For a destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations, it covers the key user-facing differences: reversible built-in consumption, irreversible self-purchased deletion, and fuzzy matching. An output schema exists, so return details are not required; however, ambiguous/no-match outcomes and interaction with undo_record/history are not addressed.

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?

The schema provides only 'name: string' with 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning. The 'XX' template in 'I drank up XX' maps the parameter to a tea name, and 'fuzzy match' explains acceptable input behavior. It could be more explicit about the field name, but the command-template approach is sufficient.

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 concrete verb and resource ('remove tea from inventory') and gives a natural trigger phrase ('I drank up XX'). It further distinguishes built-in teas (marked consumed) from self-purchased teas (deleted), making the tool's purpose clear relative to add_tea and clear_inventory.

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 trigger phrase and the parenthetical restoration note ('I bought XX' to restore) communicate when to use remove_tea and suggest add_tea as the inverse. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how record/undo_record relate, so it falls short of full guidance.

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