grocy_recipe_consume

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

With annotations already declaring this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, the description adds useful execution semantics: the endpoint and the dry-run preview path. It does not spell out the stock-level effects of consumption, but the critical safe-preview behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted text. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and the key dry-run instruction.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, endpoint, and safe preview behavior. It could say more about the resulting stock changes, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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 50%: `confirm` is richly documented in the schema, while `recipe_id` has no schema description. The description reinforces the dry-run meaning of omitting `confirm`, but adds no clarification for `recipe_id` beyond the self-evident name.

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 names a specific verb and resource: consuming in-stock ingredients for a given recipe. It is distinguishable from grocy_stock_consume, which operates on individual stock products, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as the alternative.

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?

It clearly explains the dry-run behavior: omit `confirm` to preview, and the schema reinforces that only literal `true` executes the write. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related recipe or stock operations, but the operational condition is clear.

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