Update consumed item amount

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

The description explains the safe replacement mechanism (create, verify, remove old ID), compensation on failure, and the unconfirmed PATCH endpoint. This goes beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, adding valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't clarify the role of dry_run and confirmation_token in the verification process, so not a 5.

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, focused sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent without enough details to correctly fill dry_run, confirmation_token, and client_request_id. It explains the high-level algorithm but not the invocation contract, making successful tool use uncertain.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level meaning. It doesn't explain dry_run, confirmation_token, client_request_id, date, item_id, or amount (beyond the title). The 'creates and verifies a replacement' hints at confirmation_token but is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool replaces an existing product entry, using the specific verb 'replaces' and naming the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_consumed_item and remove_consumed_item, and the title reinforces it updates the amount.

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: it's for updating an existing entry by replacement. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over add/remove, nor any exclusions or alternative tool mentions. The intended use case is understandable but not fully articulated.

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