Receive Purchase Order

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

Annotations already cover mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds that it 'records an inbound receipt' for one product line and returns 'the receipt result from Logiwa,' giving a clear expectation of the outcome. It does not discuss failure modes or side effects, but it does not contradict annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a brief instructional line, a bulleted list of common args, and a return note. It is easy to scan and contains no redundant or excessive 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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and states the return value. However, it omits some parameters (clientIdentifier, warehouseIdentifier) and references a non-existent purchaseOrderIdentifier, leaving gaps in completeness. It is reasonably helpful but not exhaustive.

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 description clarifies the meaning of key fields like purchaseOrderCode, sku, quantity, and warehouse/warehouseLocationCode, and lists optional parameters. However, it introduces 'purchaseOrderIdentifier' which is not in the schema, and omits clientIdentifier and warehouseIdentifier, creating confusion. With schema coverage at 54%, it adds useful detail but is not fully aligned with the 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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Receive stock against a purchase order' and explicitly scopes it to 'one product line.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_inventory or adjust_inventory by tying the action to a PO, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool by instructing the user to identify the PO, product, warehouse, location, and quantity, which signals a receiving-against-PO scenario. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., add_inventory) or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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