Create FBB Replenishment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating the async creation behavior and the return of a process status, which is not fully captured by annotations.

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 very concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then key inputs, then the async behavior and follow-up step. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the main points but lacks clarification on the alternative between deliveryInfo and pickupAppointment, which is hinted in the schema but not in the description. For a complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters well. The description summarizes a few key parameters ('reference, delivery date, lines') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and it omits mention of the optional deliveryInfo vs pickupAppointment choice.

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 the tool's action ('Create a new FBB replenishment'), the resource ('replenishment'), and the key inputs ('reference, delivery date, lines with EAN and quantity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_replenishment by focusing on creation.

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 context by mentioning the asynchronous nature and directing the user to use get_process_status to check completion. However, it does not explicitly tell when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_replenishment or other create tools.

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