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

The description discloses important behavioral context beyond annotations: it flags a 'sensitive-tier' approval flow ('first use may require a manager's approval...') and instructs on how to handle approval ('the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat'). It also clarifies the operational scope versus storefront content. This adds value beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context, a boundary note, routing, and approval instructions. Each section serves a purpose, but the 'Routing' line largely repeats the first sentence, and the sensitive-tier note is somewhat lengthy. Overall it's well-organized and structured with parentheses and brackets, though slightly redundant.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, what it does not affect, and the approval procedure. It does not mention return values, error handling, or failure modes, but these are often not critical for action tools. The completeness is strong given the schema and annotations already present.

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 100% — all parameters (variant_id, delta, reason, companyId) are individually documented in the schema. The description's mention of '+/-' and 'stocked location' aligns with the delta parameter but adds no new field-level semantics that aren't already present. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Adjust'), a clear resource ('a variant's available inventory'), and the method ('by a delta (+/-) at its stocked location'). It also clarifies what it is not ('stock level is operational state, not storefront copy/price'), which differentiates it from price/content-related siblings. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'receiving stock, correcting counts, or reserving units.' It also provides a boundary note about not affecting storefront copy/price; however, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion. The routing line reinforces the use case but doesn't mention alternatives by name.

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