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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's real contribution is the consequence of that flag — 'repeating adds again' — which is the practical detail an agent needs before retrying. It also discloses the underlying PUT endpoint. It stops short of permissions or error behavior, but that is minor given annotation coverage.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the not-idempotent warning placed before the id-discovery pointers. No filler sentences.

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 core write path (ids, quantity direction, non-idempotency, endpoint) is covered, but with 8 parameters and no output schema an agent still has to guess what the undocumented fields (date, source, lot_number, description) mean and whether they matter. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates for just part of the gap: it clarifies that bin_id is optional within a warehouse and that the quantity must add (positive). Half the parameters — date, source, lot_number, description — get no mention in either the description text or the schema, so the coverage gap remains.

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 concrete verb and resource ('add stock to an inventory item') plus the target location (warehouse, optional bin). The 'WRITE:' prefix and the sibling name farmbrite_remove_inventory make the direction of the operation unambiguous without opening the 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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to resolve the three required ids by naming farmbrite_list_inventory_types, farmbrite_get_inventory_locations and farmbrite_list_warehouses. It implies the contrast with removal ('Raises the quantity remaining') but never states when not to use it, e.g. that farmbrite_remove_inventory is the tool for decreases.

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