Stock Inventory Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the key behavior: it replaces the current amount rather than adding to it. It also implies a write operation (correct the stock level). It does not mention side effects like stock journal entries or permission requirements, but the core mutation behavior is transparent. No contradiction with annotations (there are none).

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the use case and replacement behavior follow immediately. Every word earns its place. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 simple tool with only two parameters, an output schema present, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and the critical behavioral distinction (replace vs. add). It also implicitly differentiates from the many stock siblings. There are no significant gaps.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by emphasizing 'absolute quantity' for new_amount, clarifying that the value is a total, not a delta. It also implicitly links the product parameter to the product being corrected. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 action: 'Correct the stock level for a product by setting an absolute quantity.' It identifies the specific resource (stock level) and the verb (correct/set). It also distinguishes itself from sibling stock tools by clarifying that it replaces the amount rather than adding or consuming, so an agent can tell it apart from stock_add_tool or stock_consume_tool 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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this when the actual count differs from what Grocy shows — e.g. after a manual count.' It also contrasts with alternatives by stating 'This replaces the current amount, not adds to it,' which implicitly tells the agent not to use it for incremental adjustments. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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