Workflow Stock Intake Apply Tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does state that the tool does not resolve names implicitly, which is important. However, it doesn't describe the mutation effect on stock, error handling, or any side effects. It's minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a key constraint. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail returns. It adequately explains the requirement of prior confirmation and the explicit ID constraint. It could name the preview tool explicitly but the reference to 'prior preview step' is sufficient.

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 items as a JSON array of confirmed apply items with product_id and amount, giving 100% coverage. The description adds clarity that product IDs must be explicit Grocy IDs and that names are not resolved, which enhances the schema's meaning.

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 tool applies confirmed stock additions using explicit Grocy product IDs, and explicitly notes it does not resolve names implicitly. This distinguishes it from other stock tools that might resolve names and ties it to the preview workflow.

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?

It explicitly instructs to only apply confirmed IDs from a prior preview step, establishing a clear workflow prerequisite. It also states that names are not resolved implicitly, which guides when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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