record_sale

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and non-idempotent, so the description carries the burden of disclosing destructive side effects. It explicitly states 'automatically deduct the corresponding product stocks,' which is the key behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention reversibility or other consequences, but the primary side effect is communicated clearly.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and side effect. It is concise and avoids redundancy with the schema. While it could mention return aspects, the output schema already covers that, so the brevity is appropriate.

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?

Given the rich schema and output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (stock deduction) that an agent needs. It doesn't discuss prerequisites like product existence or payment impacts, but the schema and annotations provide enough for correct invocation. The core side effect is clearly stated, so completeness is strong.

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 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all parameters. The description adds a slight semantic cue by mentioning stock deduction, linking items to inventory, but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the extensive schema documentation.

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 specific verb 'Record' and resource 'sale order' with the key side-effect of automatic stock deduction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adjust_stock and cancel_sale, making the 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 when to use the tool (when recording a sale) and highlights the automatic stock deduction, which is a critical behavioral nuance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like adjust_stock or cancel_sale, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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