use

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals an item constraint (inventory or statefil in scene) but does not state what 'using' does—whether the item is consumed, whether the scene changes, or what side effects occur. An agent cannot predict the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence with no filler; the core constraint is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 state-changing tool with two required parameters, the description leaves out usage selection and parameter semantics, and it does not illuminate behavioral outcomes. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to document return values, so the description is minimally viable but not 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% and the description never mentions item_name or adventure_session_id. item_name is weakly inferable from 'inventory item,' but adventure_session_id is entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess its purpose.

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 names a specific action ('use') and a precise scope ('an inventory item or a stateful item present in the current scene'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like take_item, drop_item, and examine. The verb-plus-resource pattern makes the tool's purpose immediately intelligible.

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 implies that 'use' is appropriate when an item should be consumed or activated, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over examine, take_item, or drop_item. No when/when-not guidance is provided, only the inherent meaning of the verb.

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