grocy_stock_entry

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful context with "Writes need confirm" and endpoint mappings, but it does not disclose what update changes, what printlabel actually returns or affects, or any side effects beyond the confirm gate.

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 short and front-loads the action mappings, but it is written in telegraphic fragments that reduce clarity. "Stock entry." is an ambiguous lead, and the endpoint references occupy space without adding much semantic guidance.

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 9-parameter mutation-capable tool with only 22% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too incomplete. It omits the meaning of most parameters and does not describe return behavior for get or printlabel.

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 only 22%, with entry_id and confirm documented in the schema. The description does not explain the roles of amount, price, open, location_id, shopping_location_id, or best_before_date, so it does not compensate for the low coverage on a 9-parameter tool.

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 the resource ("Stock entry") and maps each action to an HTTP operation, so the available operations are visible. However, it never states the tool's purpose in a clear verb+resource form beyond endpoint mappings, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as grocy_stock_transaction or grocy_stock_product.

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?

It notes that writes require confirm, which gives some usage context for update. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose get versus update versus printlabel, and no comparison to sibling stock tools, leaving operation selection largely to the enum.

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