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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that a movement is posted which alters stock valuation and COGS, and it names the return value. It stops short of stating permission requirements or reversibility.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by side effects and return value. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description usefully covers the write's downstream impact and the returned adjustment id. It is nearly sufficient, but omits permission/idempotency expectations and leaves several required-looking parameters unexplained.

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 only 60% with 10 parameters, so the description carries responsibility to compensate, and it says nothing about any parameter. Fields like product_id, warehouse_id, notes, and warehouse_location_id are undocumented in both places, and no syntax, constraints, or interaction between quantity and adjustment_type is 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?

States a specific verb set (increases, decreases, sets) on a precise resource and scope: one product's on-hand quantity at one warehouse. No sibling tool performs inventory adjustment, and the three supported modes are named explicitly, so an agent can identify the operation 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?

The description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_inventory_levels for reading, find_product for resolving the product, list_warehouses for the warehouse). Usage is only inferable from the operation itself; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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