lemonade_set_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds the '10-cent increments' constraint, which is already covered by the schema's multipleOf. It does not mention persistence, side effects, validation behavior, or whether the price affects other systems (e.g., sales, profit). 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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource immediately, making it efficient and scannable.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action and units, but it omits behavioral details such as return values, error cases, or how the price fits into the broader game loop. Given the simplicity, this is marginally adequate, but it could be more complete by noting whether the price persists or affects day results.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'per cup' and '10-cent increments', which clarifies the parameter's meaning and matches the schema's multipleOf. However, it does not explain the range (10-500) or provide additional context beyond what the parameter name and schema constraints already suggest. The description adds some value but not fully.

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 ('Set'), the resource ('selling price per cup'), and the unit ('cents'), making it immediately apparent what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling set_* tools like set_recipe by specifying the per-cup price context.

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 when the user wants to change the selling price per cup, which is clear from the tool name and context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide timing or prerequisite guidance (e.g., before starting a day). It is thus adequate but not explicit.

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