m3_create_stock_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Async import queue' is a genuinely useful behavioral trait — it tells the agent the creation is queued rather than synchronous. However, it does not explain the implications: whether a confirmation is returned, whether the agent must poll m3_stock_cards later, or what happens on failure. This is a meaningful disclosure but incomplete.

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 two short fragments with zero filler; the main action is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It loses a point because 'Async import queue' reads as a disconnected afterthought rather than an integrated sentence explaining the behavior.

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?

This is a complex 14-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. The async-queue disclosure raises questions (no response contract, no polling guidance, no error semantics) that the description does not answer. An agent cannot fully predict the call's behavior or what to do after invoking it, so the description is not complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 all 14 parameters. The description adds only the 'optional' framing for barcode/weight/warranty/category, which the schema already implies by listing just 2 required fields. This is a marginal addition over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('stock/inventory card'), and names the optional fields (barcode, weight, warranty, category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like m3_stock_cards (read) and m3_delete_stock_card (delete), and from resource-different siblings like m3_create_stock_document. It loses the 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the confusingly similar creation siblings.

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 'use this when you need a new stock card' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With 60+ siblings including m3_create_stock_document and m3_create_inventory_document, an agent gets no help choosing between them. The async-queue note hints at context but does not clarify selection.

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