create_loss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description only states 'Create a stock write-off' with no information about side effects (e.g., reducing stock), permissions, reversibility, or return values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero unnecessary words. It immediately identifies the verb and resource, making it concise and easy to parse.

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?

This tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It fails to explain what a stock write-off entails (e.g., reducing inventory, recording loss reasons), any prerequisites, or the resulting document behavior. The completeness is inadequate compared to the sibling tools and the complexity of the operation.

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 100%, with all four parameters having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Meta href of the warehouse/store'). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by mentioning 'from a warehouse', which aligns with store_href. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 action ('Create a stock write-off') and the resource ('списание' in Russian) with a source context ('from a warehouse'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_move, create_enter, and create_demand by naming the specific document type and operation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for creating a write-off document, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The guidance is minimal but the purpose itself provides a clear enough reason to use it.

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