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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial specific behavior that it overwrites the level rather than adding to it, that it sets an absolute value, and the recovery guidance to read current levels first. This is meaningful context beyond the flag.

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 destructive absolute-overwrite behavior front-loaded, followed by the recovery prerequisite and the API endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 mutation with a fully documented schema and destructiveHint, the description supplies the one thing structured data can't: the overwrite semantics and restoration advice. No output schema exists but none is needed for a set operation.

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. The description lifts stock_after meaning further by calling it the ABSOLUTE new level (vs. a delta), which the schema's terse 'new stock level' doesn't stress, and confirms multi-variant/multi-store input.

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) and resource (inventory levels/stock), and immediately clarifies scope with 'one or more variants at given stores'. It also distinguishes the operation from an additive one, so an agent knows exactly what class of action this is.

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?

Names the trigger ('after a stock count') and explicitly routes to the sibling tool loyverse_list_inventory to read current levels first so they can be restored. That is a concrete when-to-use plus a prerequisite alternative, leaving little to inference.

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