Sell a Joker or consumable

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds a specific behavioral constraint (Eternal Joker rejection) that is not captured in structured data. It does not contradict annotations, and the extra detail provides useful context beyond the basic safety profile.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a key caveat. Every word is informative, with no filler or repetition relative to the schema/annotations.

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 destructive action with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the crucial operation and the main behavioral exception. It could optionally mention the outcome of a successful sale (e.g., removal and monetary gain), but the core context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, and parameter descriptions in the schema are clear (kind, index, expected_state_token). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the action ('出售' = sell) and the resource ('Joker 或消耗牌' = Joker or consumable), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'use_consumable' by specifying the selling action, not just using.

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 does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use selling vs. using. However, the note that 'Eternal Joker 会提前拒绝' provides a clear exclusion condition (don't attempt to sell Eternal Jokers), giving some usage guidance. Overall usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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