lot_create

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds substantial behavioral context: uniqueness rules with the lot_number_taken error, the tracking_not_applicable failure, and the fact that on-hand is derived from movements rather than stored. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, then constraints, then optional fields and the derived-quantity note. The semicolon-chained sentences are dense but every clause adds information; slightly more structure would earn a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral semantics, error cases, and field options. It does not describe the return value or the role of workspaceId/idempotencyKey, leaving a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for most fields: number (1-60 chars, case-insensitive per-item uniqueness), status (default open), and the optional expiryDate/manufacturedDate/supplierReference/notes. workspaceId and idempotencyKey are left implicit, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a lot (a batch)') and defines the entity precisely as a batch against a lot-tracked item. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like lot_update, lot_set_status, and lot_archive without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('the item must be lot-tracked') and the exact when-not outcome (tracking_not_applicable), effectively telling the agent when this call will fail. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., serial_create, lot_update) for related cases, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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