lemonade_start_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one specific behavior: returning a structured `game_rejected_action` error when supplies are insufficient. However, it does not disclose whether starting the day is irreversible, consumes resources, or has other side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It opens with the primary action and then adds the key error behavior. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to mention what 'configured day' means, what prerequisites (e.g., location, supplies, recipe) must be in place, or how this tool relates to siblings like `lemonade_run_day`. The error note is useful but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain.

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 states a clear action: 'Start the configured day.' It names the specific resource and verb. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `lemonade_run_day`, which likely has overlapping functionality, so it loses a point for sibling ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The only extra information is the error condition for insufficient supplies, which is behavioral rather than usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing with other tools, or when not to use it.

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