Transfer Inventory (Product)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not burdened with stating those. It adds useful context that codes or UUIDs are accepted and that additional_fields can be used for extra API fields. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like how the source stock is decremented or what happens on partial failure, which would be valuable for a 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then provides a structured list of common arguments and a return note. Each sentence contributes useful information, but the informal 'Args (common)' list is slightly verbose and could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the main requirements: what the tool does, how to identify the product and locations, optional fields, the escape hatch for additional fields, and a basic return statement. It is adequate for complex usage, though it could be more explicit about the need for a product reference and what the 'transfer result' contains.

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 only 38%, so the description needs to compensate. It does this by explaining the core parameters: productSku/productIdentifier, quantity, source/target warehouse locations, and optional fields like packTypeName and lotBatchNumber. It also clarifies the role of additional_fields as a merge into the request body. Some parameters (e.g., sourceLicensePlateNumber) are not individually explained, but the opening phrase about license plates provides partial context.

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 opens with 'Move a quantity of a product between warehouse locations / license plates', which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_inventory, adjust_inventory, and list_inventory. This is an unambiguous statement of the tool's function.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to transfer stock between locations/license plates) and recommends resolving values with logiwa_lookup, logiwa_list_warehouses, and logiwa_list_warehouse_locations. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as adjust_inventory or add_inventory, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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