set_stock_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that apply is unavailable (a real behavioral fact), but says nothing about auth requirements, whether dryRun defaults to true, what previewToken does, or reversibility of the eventual write. Several critical behaviors (idempotencyKey, expected*Hash fields) are left entirely unexplained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the preview-first nature; no padding. But the second sentence reads as an operational status note rather than tool guidance, which weakens its usefulness.

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 10-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema mutation-style tool with hash-locking and idempotency semantics, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, safety profile, return behavior, and the preview/apply handshake that its own name implies.

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% with 10 parameters including nested objects, enum, and hash-locking fields. The description mentions none of them – no explanation of mode, dryRun, previewToken, idempotencyKey, or the four expected*Hash guards. This is a severe gap.

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 this is a 'preview-first replacement for the deprecated immediate stock-transfer write,' which conveys a replacement/preview intent, but it never names the resource operation clearly and the second sentence about 'Apply remains unavailable' muddies what the tool actually does. Across many siblings named 'set_*' and 'upsert_stock_transfer', the agent is left unsure whether this writes, previews, or is inert.

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 hints at a preview-first workflow but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use, no guidance on dryRun vs previewToken, and no routing versus 'upsert_stock_transfer' or 'set_stock_adjustment'. The phrase about apply being unavailable is the closest thing to guidance but is ambiguous.

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