upsert_stock_transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it delivers the critical behavioral facts: this is a legacy immediate write that bypasses INFLOW_ENABLE_SAFE_WRITES and is high risk. That is far more than the schema offers. It stops short of describing irreversibility, permissions, or partial-failure behavior for a bulk-item mutation.

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?

Three clauses, zero waste, and the highest-stakes information (legacy, high risk, bypasses safe writes) is front-loaded in brackets before the functional description. Ideal structure for a danger-flagged 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?

For an 8-parameter, nested-object mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the safety warning and the preferred alternative. It lacks any note on what the call returns (e.g., created transfer id) or on safe-write flag behavior after the call.

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 75% (id, items, remarks, toLocationId, transferDate, fromLocationId all documented in the schema), so the schema largely carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., id being required for updates, timestamp format, customFields usage), leaving the baseline 3.

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 concrete verb+resource pair ('Create or update a stock transfer between locations') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling set_stock_transfer by declaring itself legacy and preferring the sibling. An agent can classify it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away: 'Use set_stock_transfer instead.' This is unambiguous when-not guidance naming the exact alternative, which is the strongest form of usage direction short of documenting the narrow migration case where this tool is still needed.

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