merit_create_inventory_movement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the HTTP method, date format, and type-dependent requirements, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, response behavior, or error conditions.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and endpoint, then packs the type-specific rules without filler. Every clause contributes.

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 is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits the required structure of the 'rows' array objects (e.g., item code, quantity, cost). An agent cannot reliably construct a valid request body for all types from the provided information.

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 description adds meaningful conditional semantics beyond the schema, such as itemUnitCost being required on rows for type 1 and location2Code being the destination for type 3. However, the required 'rows' array item structure remains undocumented, preventing a perfect score.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a Merit Aktiva inventory movement') and includes the POST endpoint, making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from read-oriented siblings like merit_list_inventory_movements.

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 type semantics ('1 = in, 2 = out, 3 = between stocks') give clear contextual guidance for when each variant applies. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the create vs. list distinction in sibling names makes the use case obvious.

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