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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world; the description reinforces the write/non-idempotent behavior and adds useful details: the required write_products permission, the endpoint, zero rejection, and the consequence of repeating the call.

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?

It is front-loaded with 'WRITE' and packs only actionable information into a few dense sentences: relative semantics, rejection rule, default location, permission, non-idempotence, and endpoint. There is 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 three-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential context: what changes, how the relative amount works, non-idempotence, permission requirements, default location behavior, and the underlying endpoint.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics by stating that adjustment_quantity is relative, that zero is rejected, and that omitted location_id targets the primary location. The positive/negative behavior is already in the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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: add to or remove from stock for one variant at one location by a relative amount. The phrase 'relative amount' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling easystore_set_inventory_level, which sets an absolute level.

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 gives clear usage context: positive adds, negative removes, zero is rejected, omit location_id for the primary location, and it is not idempotent. It does not explicitly name easystore_set_inventory_level as the alternative for absolute stock values, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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