m3_create_stock_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important trait: the operation is asynchronous and goes through an import queue. But it does not explain what success/failure looks like, whether the document is created immediately or only after queue processing, or any side effects beyond queuing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the key behavioral caveat. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a create tool with a well-defined schema: it names the document type, notes the async queue, and the schema covers required fields. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from clarifying what the caller should expect after enqueueing, such as a queue ID, status check, or error handling.

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 coverage is 89%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds a mild semantic grouping by mentioning 'controlling vars,' which likely maps to codes like projectCode, activityCode, and costCenterCode, but it does not explain any specific parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('create'), a concrete resource ('stock/warehouse document'), and clarifies the document kind ('receipt or dispatch'). This is enough to distinguish it from nearby siblings like m3_create_stock_card and m3_create_inventory_document.

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 intended use is implied by the name and opening phrase: use this to create a stock/warehouse document. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related create tools, nor any exclusion criteria or alternative names.

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