Создать инвентаризацию товаров

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the substantive behavioral fact that the document is NOT posted and creates no movements, so the agent knows this is a non-posting write. That is meaningfully more than the annotations provide, though it omits error/permission behavior.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and the not-posted caveat. The fragment 'dry-run/confirm' is cryptic shorthand that would read better as a full sentence, but nothing is padding.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need only convey purpose and the non-posting/dry-run behavior, which it does. Minor gap: it says nothing about warehouse/organization scoping or what the resulting document reference is, but the schema and output schema carry those.

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 already documents every parameter, including the detailed confirm/operationId protocol. The line 'Для каждой позиции: фактическое и учётное количество' merely restates the lines item fields, adding no syntax or format detail beyond 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Создаёт документ «Инвентаризация товаров на складе»') and clarifies the reconciliation scope (fact vs. accounting). It also implicitly separates itself from the warehouse siblings create_surplus/create_writeoff by stating the document is only a basis for оприходование/списание, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 only usage signal in the description is the terse 'dry-run/confirm' token, which hints at the preview-then-commit workflow but does not explain it. The actual when/how guidance (show preview first, get consent, reuse operationId) lives in the schema's 'confirm' field, not in the description itself.

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