mark_sold

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: only passed args are set (partial update), clear=True erases all sold fields, and other fields are preserved. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies side effects, though it does not cover error cases.

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 concise, with three focused sentences. It is front-loaded with the action, then organizes details logically, and contains no filler or redundant 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?

The description covers core behavior, parameter semantics, and integration with an archival tool, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or return values, but given the idempotency annotation and clear parameter semantics, it is reasonably 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%, but the description compensates by explaining the identifier forms (assetId/alias/exact name), the sold fields (price, buyer, date, notes), the YYYY-MM-DD date format, and the clear parameter. It effectively maps to all six parameters and adds critical semantics about partial updates.

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 tool records an item as sold using an identifier, and lists the updatable fields (price, buyer, date, notes). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing set_item for archiving, making its specific purpose evident.

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?

It provides explicit pairing guidance with set_item(archived=True) when the item should leave active inventory, and explains when to use clear=True. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like set_fields, though the specialized purpose is clear.

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