edit_shop_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform the agent. It mentions the capability for absolute and relative adjustments but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. This leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences: first states the high-level purpose, second adds the key nuance of numeric adjustment types. No superfluous words or information.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers broad capabilities but omits details like whether 'effects' replaces existing effects (schema states this but description doesn't), confirmation of changes, or error conditions. For a complex edit tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a general statement about relative adjustments, which reinforces schema enums but does not significantly augment understanding of param semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Modify an existing shop item' with a specific verb and resource. It lists key adjustable properties (price, stock, owned quantity, effects) which distinguishes it from 'add_shop_item' that creates items.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'add_shop_item' or 'delete_achievement'. The description implies modification use via the word 'Modify', but lacks context-specific suggestions or exclusions.

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