Register stock movement

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and dedup profile is known without the description. The description does add a practical detail – reuse the key only for retries, not for new movements – which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation. It says nothing about what happens on a rejected/duplicate call or any authorization requirements.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the idempotency caveat follows immediately, which is exactly the right ordering for a mutation tool.

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?

Covers purpose, direction, and the idempotency contract for a 5-parameter write tool whose schema is fully documented and whose annotations carry the safety profile. With no output schema, return values needn't be explained, but the description is silent on failure/duplicate-key behavior and on whether 'out' quantities are validated.

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%, including an explicit explanation of idempotency_key and the in/out enum, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description restates the in/out semantics and key reuse rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (register) and resource (stock movement) plus the two directional modes (in/out), which maps directly onto the 'type' enum. It doesn't name or contrast with the sibling read tools (get_stock, get_movement_history), but the write-vs-read distinction is obvious from the verb.

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?

Provides real guidance for the retry case ('send the same idempotency_key when retrying'), which is the main usage pitfall for a movement-recording call. It says nothing about when to prefer this tool over siblings or any preconditions such as stock availability for 'out'.

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