prepare_reconcile_inventoryStage inventory reconciliation by confirming an item's presence, entering a corrected quantity, or marking it absent for approval.
Stage confirming an inventory lot's presence and optional corrected quantity, or marking it absent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| present | Yes | ||
| quantity | No | ||
| inventory_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The word 'Stage' adds real context (this is a two-phase pending change), but the description omits how the staged change is later confirmed or cancelled.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action and both modes front-loaded. It is dense but not padded, though the phrasing 'Stage confirming...' is slightly convoluted.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the core action but leaves out the staging lifecycle (confirm/cancel), permission needs, and the meaning of the quantity constraint. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies 'present' (presence vs. absent) and 'quantity' ('optional corrected quantity'), which is meaningful, but 'inventory_id' gets no semantic explanation and the boolean's polarity is only implied.
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 ('stage') and resource ('inventory lot') with two clear modes: confirming presence with an optional corrected quantity, or marking absent. It is distinguishable from siblings like prepare_intake_inventory, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternatives. Critically, it never explains that this 'stages' a change requiring confirm_action to commit, so an agent gets no routing or lifecycle context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.