transfer_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is a location change, not a quantity change, and explains the ambiguity risk with from_location. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the product is not found, but the core behavioral semantics are well disclosed.

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 well-structured with a short opening, a clarifying sentence, and a clear Args list. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence earns its place, especially the from_location guidance. The front-loaded purpose sentence is effective.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key decision points: what the tool does, how to identify locations, and when from_location is required. It does not describe return values or error cases, but the essential calling context is present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains product as 'name, description fragment, or barcode', to_location and from_location as id or exact name, and amount as 'in the product's stock unit'. It also explains the optionality of from_location. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Move stock from one location to another' and gives a concrete example ('freezer to fridge'). It also distinguishes itself from related stock tools by emphasizing it changes location, not quantity, which separates it from add_stock, consume_product, and correct_stock.

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 explicitly explains when from_location is optional vs required, and why guessing would be wrong when stock is split. This gives an agent actionable decision criteria for when to include the parameter. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it changes where, not how much.

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