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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation has NO undo and no dry-run, that nothing validates without writing, that rows with foreign Variation IDs are skipped, and that the import does not appear in the cabinet's Recent Imports list. These are meaningful side-effect and irreversibility details that annotations alone do not provide.

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 core operation and the SETS-not-adjusts constraint are front-loaded, followed by the critical pre-call safety workflow and post-call reporting note. Despite its length, every sentence earns its place for a high-risk bulk write operation, with no filler.

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 destructive bulk import with no output schema, the description covers the input format constraints, the destructive and irreversible nature, the absence of validation, the pre-call confirmation requirement, and the post-call reporting expectation. Nothing essential for safe invocation appears to be missing.

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 defines both parameters. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by specifying that csv comes from export_stock_csv, that only the New Qty column should be edited, and that the header and Variation ID column must be kept as exported; it adds less about outletId beyond what the schema already says.

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: it writes stock counts for ONE outlet from the CSV returned by export_stock_csv. It distinguishes the operation from adjust_stock and clarifies that each row SETS the variant quantity rather than applying a +/- adjustment, so an agent can identify the tool 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?

It explicitly routes small jobs to adjust_stock ("For one or two variants use adjust_stock instead") and provides a pre-call workflow requiring a preview, row count, and explicit merchant confirmation. It also warns there is no undo or dry-run, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions.

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