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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it warns the call overwrites the current on-hand quantity, that Veeqo may propagate the new available stock to connected sales channels (an external side effect matching openWorldHint), that infinite-stock is read first and never modified, and that the endpoint requires a paid plan. That is exactly the kind of destruction/scope detail an agent needs on a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the core action, then layers risk and preconditions efficiently. The trailing 'GET then PUT /sellables/{sellable_id}/warehouses/{warehouse_id}/stock_entry' is implementation detail that is somewhat expendable, but the four sentences otherwise earn their place.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description supplies the overwrite behavior, channel propagation risk, plan gating, and the untouched infinite-stock setting. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema ('optionally its bin location', overwrite semantics for physical_stock_level), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), resource ('physical stock level'), and scope ('ONE sellable in ONE warehouse'), plus parenthetical disambiguation as a 'stock count correction'. An agent can distinguish this from the read-only sibling veeqo_get_stock_entry immediately.

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 parenthetical 'a stock count correction' frames the intended scenario, and 'Paid plan only' gives a real precondition. It does not, however, explicitly name veeqo_get_stock_entry as the read counterpart or state when not to use this write path.

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