shelf_kit_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the batch scope ('bulk', multiple kitIds) and the three intent modes, but says nothing about partial-failure semantics, permissions, or batch limits for a multi-record mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the operation set arrive immediately. It is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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 bulk mutation over multiple kit IDs with no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about return shape, partial-failure behavior, and how this differs from the single-item custody and location siblings. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the omission is real but not severe.

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 coverage is 60%, and the schema itself already documents orgId's default and the conditional requirement of custodianId/newLocationId. The description's three intent names simply restate the enum values, adding no syntax, format, or conditional-binding detail beyond the schema.

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 (bulk action), the resource (kits), and enumerates the three supported intents, matching the intent enum exactly. The 'on kits' scoping does differentiate it from the asset-oriented siblings like shelf_assign_custody and shelf_bulk_update_location, though it never names 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing, despite heavy sibling overlap with shelf_assign_custody, shelf_release_custody, and shelf_bulk_update_location. The word 'bulk' weakly implies 'use this for many kits at once', but the agent must infer that on its own.

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