Add Inventory

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating the effect (increasing on-hand quantity), the requirement that the record must exist, and that adjustmentReasonName must match a configured reason. However, it does not discuss side effects, error cases, or idempotency beyond what annotations provide, so a 4 is appropriate.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief identifying instruction, an Args list, and a Returns line. It is not excessively long, but the Args section largely duplicates schema information, which is slightly redundant. Overall, it is organized and front-loaded, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and is a mutation operation. The description covers the main inputs, the requirement to use an existing record, and the return value as 'the operation result from Logiwa,' which is vague. It lacks detail on error handling or what the result contains, leaving some gaps for such a complex tool.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The description mostly repeats the schema content, but adds a useful constraint ('adjustmentReasonName must match a configured reason') not present in the schema. This is a modest addition, consistent with a baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool increases the on-hand quantity of an existing inventory record by a given quantity. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like logiwa_adjust_inventory or logiwa_remove_inventory, and the reference to 'existing inventory record' clarifies it is not a creation operation.

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 for use: it increases quantity on an existing record and instructs the user to identify the record via inventoryIdentifier (UUID) from logiwa_list_inventory. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the 'increases' wording implies it is for increments specifically. Lacks explicit exclusions, hence not a 5.

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