add_stock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with that. It adds the context that the stock is added to the 'current model', but does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, or behavior beyond the schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, highly concise sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and target. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the output schema, and full parameter descriptions, this short description is largely sufficient. It covers the core action and target. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or explicit differentiators from similar add_* tools, so it is not a 5.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('stock'), with a clarifying synonym ('reservoir'), and indicates the target context ('current model'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_flow, add_aux, and add_variables.

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 provides clear context: it adds a stock to the current model. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_aux) or mention exclusions, so it falls short of the top criterion.

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