minimax_consume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation increments a local counter, implying a state mutation. It does not elaborate on side effects such as persistence, overflow, or reset behavior, but it does mention the 'local' scope and the 5h window. Given the simplicity, a 3 reflects the core disclosure without deep behavioral detail.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word serves purpose: the first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context and integration with a sibling. No fluff 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?

The tool is extremely simple (one optional integer parameter). The description covers purpose, usage timing, and its role alongside minimax_status. An output schema exists but is not needed to explain return values. All information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 names 'delta' and explains it as the increment amount. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only gives the type and default. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., negative values), but the meaning is intuitively clear from the 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 states a specific verb ('increment'), a specific resource ('local 5h-window consumption counter'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by tying usage to per-API-call tracking. It also names the sibling minimax_status as the complementary tool, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to call it ('once per MiniMax API call (or batch)') and explains its role in pacing via minimax_status(). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but for a simple counter this guidance is sufficient. The context is clear and actionable.

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