create_supply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions that prices are in RUBLES, but does not disclose side effects such as inventory updates, document creation details, authorization requirements, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Create an incoming supply') and a key constraint ('Prices in RUBLES'). Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the operational context (e.g., receiving goods, posting to inventory), prerequisites, or how it relates to purchase orders or enters. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to decide when and how to use this tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, including the price_rubles parameter which already states 'in RUBLES (converted to kopecks internally)'. The tool description merely repeats the currency note, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'incoming supply' and clarifies it as a 'purchase receipt'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_purchase_order, create_enter, or create_demand. The purpose is immediately clear and 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 recording incoming supplies/purchase receipts, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when not to use this tool versus create_purchase_order or create_enter, leaving the agent to infer from the parenthetical.

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