grocy_stock_open

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the endpoint style ('POST open'), target selection by product_id or barcode, and the dry-run semantics of omitting confirm. It does not explain the effect on stock quantities, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. The core action comes first, followed by targeting and dry-run behavior, which is exactly the information an agent needs in the order it needs it.

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?

Annotations cover the mutation safety profile and the description covers dry-run behavior and targeting. Yet the definition does not explain what 'opened' does to stock accounting, how amount is applied, or the roles of stock_entry_id and allow_subproduct_substitution, leaving meaningful gaps for a write operation with no output schema.

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 50%. The description helps by explaining that targeting can be done via product_id or barcode and that omitting confirm triggers a dry-run. However, it says nothing about amount, stock_entry_id, or allow_subproduct_substitution, leaving material parameter meaning undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark amount of a product as opened.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling stock operations like consume, add, transfer, and inventory. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives explicitly, which keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 gives useful targeting guidance ('by product_id or barcode') and a dry-run hint ('Omit confirm for a dry-run'). However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as grocy_stock_consume, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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