odoo_stock_close_unaccounted_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses all behavioral traits: creates and binds a journal entry, version-aware model detection, GRNI account auto-detection with fallback logic, override parameter, refusal conditions, and the dry_run requirement. This is comprehensive.

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 dense but well-structured, with each sentence providing essential information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and avoids unnecessary words.

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 complexity (6 parameters, version-awareness, auto-detection, refusal conditions, dry_run), the description is quite complete. A minor gap is not specifying what the tool returns (e.g., the created account move ID), but this is acceptable.

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 83%, already high. The description adds significant context beyond the schema: explains auto-detection for source_model, GRNI account override purpose, date default, and the dry_run default. This adds meaningful value.

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 the tool's purpose: creating an inventory valuation journal entry for unaccounted valued movements, with version-aware behavior and GRNI account auto-detection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific function.

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 advises using dry_run=true first, explains when the tool refuses (already accounted or non-real-time category), and implicitly guides usage by detailing auto-detection and overrides. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no similar stock accounting tools exist among siblings.

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