receive_stock

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying operation (creates a Stock Entry of type Material Receipt in ERPNext), which is a key behavioral trait. It also warns against misuse for inventory corrections. However, it does not mention side effects like stock level changes or return values, which would add completeness.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then usage triggers, then implementation detail, and ends with an important exclusion. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description gives clear context for intent, usage, and underlying ERPNext operation. The main gap is the lack of return value information (since there is no output schema), but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema. It indirectly references 'fournisseur' and 'unités' but does not provide additional semantics.

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 clearly states 'Enregistrer une réception de marchandise fournisseur dans le stock' (record a supplier merchandise receipt in stock), specifying both the action and the resource. It further clarifies it creates a Stock Entry of type Material Receipt in ERPNext, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adjust_stock.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('on vient de recevoir X unités de Y', 'livraison reçue de [fournisseur]', 'entrée stock', 'on a reçu la commande') and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion with a named alternative: 'ne pas utiliser pour des corrections d'inventaire, utiliser adjust_stock.'

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