Stock Transfer 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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., decrementing source stock, requiring sufficient quantity), error conditions, or what the output schema contains. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient disclosure of behavior beyond the basic verb.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, given the tool's complexity (a transfer with implicit source logic), it is arguably too brief and omits necessary context, though the conciseness itself is good.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations and no explanation of source determination, side effects, or return value beyond the existence of an output schema (which is not shown). For an agent to invoke this correctly, it needs to know whether the source is inferred from the product's current location, whether the transfer is reversible, and what happens if stock is insufficient. These gaps make the description incomplete.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (product, amount, to_location), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema already documents the parameter semantics.

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 ('Move stock') and identifies the resource ('product') and the action's target ('a different storage location'), which clearly conveys the tool's core function. It distinguishes from add/consume tools by implying a transfer between locations, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like stock_add_tool or stock_consume_tool, so a small deduction for lack of explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., product must exist, sufficient stock), nor does it explain how the source location is determined since no 'from_location' parameter is present. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over other stock-related tools.

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