Use a consumable

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true. The description adds that target rules are 'ultimately subject to BalatroBot validation and rejection results,' disclosing a validation/rejection behavior not captured by annotations. However, it does not explain what is destroyed or what the target rules entail, so the added context is limited.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary behavioral caveat without unnecessary detail. The description is concise and well-structured with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what happens when a consumable is used and what the tool returns. It only provides a vague validation caveat, leaving the overall effect and appropriate use cases unclear. The schema helps with parameters but not with behavioral context.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptive meanings: consumable_index (0-based index), target_cards (hand indices when needed), and expected_state_token (latest state token). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, and with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 '使用消耗牌' (use a consumable card), which clearly specifies the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_cards and discard_cards by focusing on consumables. The caveat about validation does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts where a consumable should be used, or how it differs from other actions. The validation caveat is not a usage guideline.

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