Dispose as destroyed

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: dry-run by default, requiring `confirm:true` to execute, and that it is a write operation. It does not disclose reversibility or audit details, but the annotations are minimal and the description carries the burden well.

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 three short sentences, each adding value: core action, required inputs, and dry-run/commit behavior. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the core action and dry-run behavior but omits expected return values, side effects, and the relationship between `date` and `destroyed_Date`. It is adequate but not fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'destruction date, description, and witnesses', mapping to `destroyed_Date`, `destroyed_Description`, and `destroyed_Witness1/2`. However, it does not clarify the distinction between the required `date` and optional `destroyed_Date`, nor explain `note` or `externalId`, leaving ambiguity.

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 it 'Record and commit a destroyed disposition for inventory items', specifying the verb, resource, and specific disposition type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `dispose` or `create_pending_disposition` by explicitly targeting destroyed dispositions.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Provide destruction date, description, and witnesses' and 'Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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