wb_stocks_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a valuable warning: field names are not validated, and a typo returns 204 with no update. However, it does not disclose success response behavior, authorization needs, idempotency, or whether the update replaces or adjusts stock.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The warning sentence earns its place. The parenthetical '(обновить остатки)' is slightly redundant, but it does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

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 two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is usable but incomplete. It warns about a silent failure mode, which is helpful, but it does not state what a successful update returns, whether unspecified SKUs are left unchanged or zeroed, or what happens if the warehouse_id is invalid. These are material gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 only 50%: the stocks parameter has a format hint ('[{sku, amount}, ...]') but warehouse_id is undocumented. The description partially compensates by warning that field names inside the stocks payload are not validated, which is important semantic information. Still, it does not explain warehouse_id or the exact meaning of 'amount'.

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?

The description states a clear action and resource: 'Update FBS stock.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like wb_stocks_get and wb_stocks_delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_stocks_get, wb_stocks_delete, or wb_warehouse_update. The usage context is only implied by the word 'Update'; there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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