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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description needn't repeat it. The term 'draft' usefully discloses that this does not finalize stock changes, but it says nothing about validation rules, whether inventory levels are affected, or what a created draft contains.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficiently worded, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than optimal signal density.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description omits too much: the in/out discriminator, location/supplier/customer roles, line limits, and what the response returns. An agent could not reliably call this correctly from the description alone.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It only clarifies that line entries require item_id and quantity, leaving the movement_type enum, location_id, customer_id/supplier_id, sheet_number, and the max-100-lines constraint undocumented in natural language.

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 (Create) and resource (stock in/out draft), clearly distinguishing the resource from siblings like list_stock_movements or cancel_stock_movement. It doesn't explicitly name post_stock_movement as the counterpart, but 'draft' carries meaningful differentiation.

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 word 'draft' implies this tool creates an uncommitted movement, hinting at a workflow with post_stock_movement, but the alternative is never named and no when/when-not guidance is given. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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