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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the two consequences an agent most needs: the value overwrites the existing level, and the change flows outward to the sales channels the item is listed on.

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 tight sentences with the write classification and target scope front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the endpoint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 3-required-param destructive write with no output schema, the description covers what it changes, its side effects, and the pre-check step. The only omission is what the call returns or how failures surface, a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 a genuinely useful semantic the schema omits: 'level' is an absolute quantity, not a delta, and the operation is scoped to a single SKU plus a single location. It still doesn't restate formats or bounds, which the schema handles.

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?

Opens with an explicit WRITE marker and a precise verb+resource+scope: set the stock level of one product by SKU at one location to an absolute quantity. That scope immediately distinguishes it from the read-only siblings linnworks_get_stock_levels and linnworks_get_stock_history.

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 names a concrete prerequisite and the exact sibling to call first (linnworks_get_stock_levels) to inspect the current level before overwriting. It does not, however, state when this tool should NOT be used (e.g., for relative adjustments) or what other write paths exist.

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