set_stock

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosures. It mentions audit trail recording and confirm parameter, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but not fully detailed.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every sentence provides relevant information about purpose, method, and key behaviors.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: target items (non-serialized), operation type (absolute set), method (reconciliation), and key parameters (reason, confirm). It is mostly complete, though could clarify warehouse default behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains 'reason' is recorded and 'new_qty' is an absolute value, but does not describe 'item_code', 'warehouse', or 'confirm' semantics beyond their names. Partial value added.

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 tool sets a non-serialized item's on-hand quantity to an absolute value via stock reconciliation, distinguishing it from siblings like add_stock which likely increment quantity. The verb 'set' and resource 'NON-serialized item's on-hand qty' are specific, and the method (Stock Reconciliation) is mentioned.

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 use for non-serialized items and absolute quantity setting, contrasting with add_stock. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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