mark_sold

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the ownership precondition, which is useful. However, it does not discuss side effects, error conditions, or idempotency implications beyond what annotations provide.

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 that front-loads the action and key condition. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a precondition. However, it omits details like behavior if the item is already sold or not found, which could lead to incorrect usage.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no explanation for the two parameters ('api_key' and 'item_id'). The description does not clarify their purpose or any constraints, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for effective use.

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 verb 'Mark' and resource 'inventory item', specifies the status change to 'sold', and includes a precondition 'Caller must own it'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mark_for_sale' or 'delete_inventory_item', providing specific purpose clarity.

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 includes a precondition ('Caller must own it'), which helps the agent determine when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other status changes, leaving some ambiguity.

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