Создать или изменить карточку склада

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: current stock is computed from operations and cannot be set, only initial_stock can be changed, and VAT is specified as a percentage while omitting it means 'no VAT'. This significantly clarifies side effects and constraints without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences cover the core behavior and the most important caveats. There is no filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 13-parameter upsert tool with 100% schema description coverage, the description is complete enough. It covers the central create/update distinction and the non-obvious domain constraints, while the schema already documents parameter-level details such as kind being required at creation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that 'item' is the update selector, that 'initial_stock' is the only stock-related field that can be changed, and that 'vat_rate' uses percentage semantics with omission meaning no VAT.

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 states exactly what the tool does: creates a new warehouse card when no card reference is given and modifies an existing one when a card is specified. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/delete tools like warehouse_list, warehouse_get, and warehouse_delete.

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 first sentence gives explicit decision logic: use it to create when no card is specified, and to update when a card is specified. It also warns that current stock cannot be set, which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name read/delete siblings as alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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