Создать перемещение товаров

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the key non-obvious state: the created document is UNPOSTED, and posting requires a separate call with specific accounting entries (Dt 41 recipient / Kt 41 sender). That meaningfully exceeds what annotations convey, though the dry-run/confirm phrase largely repeats the confirm parameter's own schema description.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the created state, then the follow-up. No redundant wording; the terse "dry-run/confirm" fragment still earns its place as a safety cue.

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 parameter coverage, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the unposted status and the posting path with accounting implications. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents for fromWarehouse, toWarehouse, lines, confirm, and operationId.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Создаёт документ «Перемещение товаров» между складами") and immediately names the sibling post_document as the alternative for the next step. An agent can distinguish this from create_writeoff or create_surplus by the explicit between-warehouses scope.

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?

Explicitly routes posting to post_document, which is the natural follow-up action, and signals the dry-run/confirm pattern. It does not explain when to choose a transfer over a write-off or surplus, but the from/to warehouse framing makes that distinction fairly self-evident.

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