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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds far more: unitCost is a default that never re-prices placed purchase orders, and removal also drops the line from every suggested and draft order (changing totals) while leaving sent orders intact. It even states the side effects on auto-reorder rules and catalogue membership, which no annotation conveys.

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 three operations are front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries needed information, but the passage is long and the removal warning is a dense, clause-heavy run-on. It is appropriately sized for a three-mode destructive tool, though slightly more structure would help.

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 multi-mode mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter sourcing, semantic traps, idempotency behavior on re-adding, and downstream order/reorder consequences. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine disambiguation the schema lacks: unitCost is what the merchant PAYS per unit, is a human-format amount in company currency, and is 'never the selling price, and never cents'. That resolves the most likely mis-invocation (passing cents or retail price).

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 names a specific verb set (add/update/remove) against a specific resource (supplier items) and states the scope as 'what a supplier carries and what it charges, in one call'. Each of the three mutation modes is distinguished by what it does, so an agent can pick the right array 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 parameter sourcing: variantId comes from get_linkable_items for `add` and get_supplier_items for `update`/`remove`. It also gives an operational precondition ('read the current list first rather than re-adding blindly') and a usage warning to confirm removals with the merchant, which is exactly when-to-use/when-to-be-careful guidance.

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