Stock Consume Tool

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

The description discloses the core behavior (reduces quantity on hand). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It lacks details on edge cases like negative stock, error handling, or permission requirements, but the primary effect is transparent.

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?

One short sentence with the verb front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Adequate for a simple operation with an output schema present, so return values need not be described. However, it does not differentiate from recipe_consume_tool, which also consumes stock, and lacks mention of validation rules (e.g., whether negative amounts are allowed). Minor gaps given the sibling set.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (product and amount), so the description adds no extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate further.

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 'consume' with resource 'stock for a product' and clarifies the effect 'reduces the quantity on hand'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stock_add_tool (adds) and stock_transfer_tool (transfers), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer direct stock consumption over recipe_consume_tool, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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