tally_create_stock_journal

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false; the description adds the crucial two-step protocol: this call PREVIEWS only, changes nothing, and returns a confirmToken that must be passed to tally_confirm_write after the user sees and approves the preview. It even adds a behavioral constraint ("never confirm on your own initiative"), which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then line semantics, then the write/confirm protocol. No filler; each sentence carries an actionable constraint or distinction.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating what the preview returns (exactly what would be written plus a confirmToken). Combined with the mutation semantics and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke and complete the two-step flow 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 86%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning (baseline 3). The description adds genuine semantics beyond it: the shape of a line (stock item, quantity, rate, godown), the derived line value (quantity × rate), and the consumed/produced direction convention.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Post a NEW stock journal") with the domain meaning spelled out (stock OUT / stock IN, no ledger lines). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming tally_create_voucher with `items` as the tool for sales/purchases of items.

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 concrete when-to-use cases (godown transfer, production, stock adjustment) and an explicit when-not/alternative ("For a sale or purchase of items use tally_create_voucher"). It also states the required downstream step, tally_confirm_write, and the approval condition that gates it.

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