Stock Open Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that units are marked as opened, with no disclosure of side effects, such as whether stock quantity changes, whether the action is reversible, or how this state relates to consumption. This is a significant gap for a mutating stock tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and an illustrative example. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, full parameter documentation, and presence of an output schema, the description is syntactically sufficient. However, the complete absence of behavioral context and usage differentiation means an agent still cannot fully judge consequences of calling this tool, so it is only minimally complete.

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 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds only a product example ('Milk'), which slightly reinforces the product parameter but does not substantively improve on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('stock units') and clarifies the meaning with an example ('opened bottle of milk'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the related stock_add, stock_consume, or stock_transfer tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 example implies the tool should be used when a unit has been opened but not consumed, but the description never states this explicitly. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the intended lifecycle context.

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