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

Beyond the generic annotation flags, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: the call is non-committing ("changes nothing") and returns a preview plus a confirmation link, with only the merchant able to finalize. This deferred two-phase model is exactly the kind of context annotations don't capture, though auth/permission specifics and rate limits are absent.

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 purpose and the non-mutation caveat are front-loaded and tight, but the middle sentence about money in minor units earns no place since no monetary parameter exists. That off-topic sentence dilutes an otherwise efficient three-sentence description.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the call does, that it is non-committing, and what it returns (preview plus confirmation link). Only usage selection against sibling tools 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single items parameter and its nested sku/quantity. The description adds little correct parameter detail and its "Money is integer minor units (cents)" note refers to a money field that does not exist in the schema, which is extraneous and potentially confusing. Baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Set stock levels") in the first three words, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like inventory_low and config-oriented ones like settings_inventory. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling, and the name/adjust vs description/set mismatch is a small wrinkle.

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 explains the operational flow (preview then merchant confirmation on a page), which implies this is the entry point for changing stock, but it never states when to use this versus alternatives such as products_edit or products_bulk_price_edit, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is only implicitly conveyed.

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