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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does fairly well: it discloses that the value is an absolute count (not a delta), that a stock.low alert is sent when the count reaches the threshold, that null means no low point, and that Owner or office privileges are required. It omits side effects like whether a stock-move/audit record or note entry is created.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose and threshold behavior up front, followed by a terse permission tag. Dense but no wasted sentences; the parenthetical is slightly run-on.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation semantics, alert behavior, and permission requirement. For a mutation tool with zero annotations and 40% schema coverage, more on the note parameter and what happens to non-stock-tracked items would have closed the remaining gap.

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 only 40%: on_hand and low_at are documented in the schema, but note, shop_id, and pricebook_item_id have no descriptions anywhere. The description restates on_hand/low_at semantics but adds nothing about note (max 500 chars — is it a reason for the correction?) or the required UUIDs, so it does not fully compensate for the gap.

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: sets the count on hand and the low point for a price book material. An agent can distinguish it from stock_adjust by the absolute-set versus correction framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases — tracking stock for a price book material and correcting the count after a physical count — plus the permission condition ('Owner or office'). It never names stock_adjust/stock_moves as the alternative for delta changes, so the routing signal is implied rather than explicit.

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