consume_product_purchase

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

The description discloses the primary effect (marking as consumed) and the consequence (user can purchase again). It does not mention irreversibility or other side effects, but given no annotations, it provides sufficient transparency for a straightforward operation.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the purpose and effect without unnecessary details.

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 simplicity of the operation and that parameters are fully described in the schema, the description is complete enough for a user to understand when and how to use it. It does not explain return values, but the output schema is likely straightforward and not critical for this action.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information, but the input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (package_name, product_id, purchase_token), resulting in 100% schema coverage. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Consume an in-app product purchase') and specifies the resource ('consumable products'). It also explains the outcome ('Marks the product as consumed so the user can purchase it again'), which distinguishes it from other purchase-related actions like acknowledge or refund.

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 usage by noting it applies to consumable products and that it enables repurchase. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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