Workflow Stock Intake Preview Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Preview' reasonably implies a non-mutating, look-before-you-apply operation, and the reference to the matching contract adds behavioral context. However, it never explicitly states that no stock changes are made or that this is a dry-run, which would be especially valuable without annotations.

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, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence only to clarify naming and relationship to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 simple: one required parameter with full schema coverage, and an output schema is present. The description sufficiently communicates the preview purpose and relationship to the matching preview tool. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, though an explicit 'no changes are applied' statement would make it fully 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?

The input schema already describes the only parameter as a 'JSON array of normalized input items' with 100% coverage. The description adds the phrase 'normalized external items' in context, but provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already exposes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific operation — 'Preview Grocy stock additions for normalized external items' — and links it to the matching contract of workflow_match_products_preview_tool, giving the agent a clear sense of what the tool does. It is not a tautology and its preview intent is understandable, though the 'same matching contract' phrasing still relies on knowing the sibling tool.

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 implies when the tool is intended: for the common 'I bought these groceries' workflow, and it references workflow_match_products_preview_tool as a related contract. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with workflow_stock_intake_apply_tool or state when previewing is preferable to applying, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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