insert_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions walking. It does not disclose that this is likely a job-queueing operation (evident from wait_s and replace), that it can block until completion, that it may return a job id, or that it can cancel existing jobs when replace is used. The mutation of inventory is clear from 'Move', but the consequential job semantics are omitted.

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 filler. It communicates the core action and destination immediately. The parenthetical '(walks within reach)' is compact but slightly ambiguous, which keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 five parameters, an output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is under-specified. It fails to mention that the operation can take time, queue behind other jobs, or return a job id, and it does not clarify what kinds of entities are valid targets. The schema partially compensates for wait_s and replace, but the overall context is too thin for safe autonomous use.

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 the schema already fully documents x, y, items, wait_s, and replace, including item syntax and wait/replace behavior. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not harm, but it does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Move'), the source ('items from your inventory'), and the destination ('into the entity at x,y'). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from its sibling extract_items (the reverse operation) and from craft_items, which creates new items. The parenthetical also communicates a key operational trait: the agent may need to walk to reach the target.

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 tool is for depositing inventory items into an entity, but it never explicitly explains when to choose insert_items over alternatives like extract_items or craft_items. There is no 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance, and the reach/walking condition is only implicit. Agents must infer the intended usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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