Mark an item as consumable/not consumable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses a critical behavioral trait: setting consumable=true automatically clears worn on the item placement. This goes beyond a simple setter and is valuable for the agent.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the key fact ('mutually exclusive') and states the consequence directly. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple setter with no output schema, the description covers the central behavior but lacks parameter explanations and usage context. It does not mention prerequisites or other related operations, making it minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'consumable' parameter's role via the mutual exclusivity note; itemId and categoryId are not explained at all, leaving their semantics unclear despite the tool name providing some context.

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 indicates the tool sets the consumable flag by stating 'setting consumable=true automatically clears worn.' Combined with the title, the purpose is evident. It also distinguishes from siblings like set_item_worn by explaining the mutual exclusivity relationship.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to mark an item as consumable or not. The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the side-effect note gives a contextual hint that this tool interacts with worn status.

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