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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: quantities are added to REAL STOCK in one step, there is no undo, and recovery requires a manual stock adjustment. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then the routing rule, then the double-count warning, then prerequisites, then the irreversibility note. No filler, and the highest-stakes information (only when no order exists) is front-loaded.

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 13-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the gaps that matter: prerequisites, side effects on stock, irreversibility, and the sibling it must not be swapped with. An agent has everything needed to decide and to call it correctly.

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 already 85%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value on top: it constrains variantId (must be supplier-linked via get_supplier_items) and outletId (must be stock-managed where goods physically arrived). The remaining 13 parameters are documented in the schema itself, so no further compensation is required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (record received goods) and immediately scopes it: goods that arrived with NO purchase order. It explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (receive_purchase_order) and explains the distinction, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (no order exists), when-not (goods match a sent order), the alternative tool to use instead, and the failure mode of getting it wrong (double counting). It also lists preconditions: check get_purchase_orders for an open order, items must be linked via get_supplier_items, and stock-managed at the outlet.

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