chest-withdraw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Take items from a chest into the inventory' only states the core action and lacks details about side effects (e.g., items being removed from the chest), prerequisites, potential failures (e.g., insufficient space, empty chest), or any additional behavior. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place by conveying the essential action and direction. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about outcomes, edge cases, or any special conditions. It simply states the action without mentioning what happens on success or failure, whether the chest loses items, or any requirements like proximity or opened inventory. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters (coordinates, itemName, count). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter names and descriptions already carry the meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Take'), specifies the resource ('items from a chest'), and clarifies the destination ('into the inventory'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like chest-peek (view only) and chest-deposit (opposite direction).

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 the usage context (moving items from chest to inventory) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like chest-peek or chest-deposit. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, but the core context is unambiguous.

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