add_stock

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the write nature, the reported new total, the requirement that the product already exists, and the special best-before estimation behavior. It does not mention error behavior or side effects on stock history, but it covers the core behavior well.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, and every parameter explanation adds necessary operational detail. There is no repetition of schema type information and no filler.

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 description is complete for a simple 4-parameter tool: it explains all parameters, the product-matching constraint, the date estimation convention, and the expected result. It could go further by describing error cases or exact response shape, but with no output schema it still gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. Each parameter gains meaning: product may be name/fragment/barcode and must match exactly one existing product; amount is in the product's own unit; best_before_date uses package date or pantry conventions; location_id is optional and may be id or exact name.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Record newly bought stock, and report the new total.' The verb 'record' plus 'newly bought stock' clearly distinguishes this from stock correction, consumption, or transfer tools among the siblings.

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 gives clear context: it is for newly bought stock, and it explicitly notes that this tool does not create new products, which sets a boundary against create_product. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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