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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the load and delivers: WRITE declaration, PATCH semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), null-clears semantics, replace-not-merge semantics for tags and custom_attribute_values, plus the exact endpoint and 204 return code. No contradiction with the destructive hint.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by overwrite semantics and the transport detail. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent must know: which fields change, how to clear a value, what gets replaced, write classification, and that success returns 204 with no body.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not encode: partial-update behavior, null-to-clear, and wholesale replacement of tags/custom_attribute_values. That materially changes how an agent constructs the payload.

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 and resource ('Change fields on an existing item or folder') and immediately disambiguates the mutation surface from sortly_move_item ('To move PART of an item's stock use sortly_move_item'). An agent can route between this and the sibling move tool without opening schemas.

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?

Concrete usage scenarios are given (stock count quantity update, rename, folder relocation via parent_id), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It lacks an explicit negative case beyond the partial-stock-move carve-out, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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