set_item_price_cents

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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark it as destructive and idempotent), the description discloses the optimistic lock mechanism, the absolute price bounds, the dry_run semantics (still performs a read but never writes), and permission requirements. This provides substantial behavioral detail that annotations alone do not convey.

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 succinct yet information-dense. It opens with the core purpose, then uses bullet-like lines for the lock, bounds, dry_run, and permissions. Every sentence contributes necessary behavioral or semantic detail with no fluff.

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 mutation tool with optimistic locking, the description covers all critical aspects: the write semantics, the stale-context protection, the range constraints, the dry_run option, and required scopes. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of each parameter: item_id (implicit), new_price_cents (bounds defined), expected_current_price_cents (used for optimistic lock), and dry_run (preview mode). This goes far beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 clearly states 'Set an item's price (in cents, absolute value)', identifying the exact verb, resource, and unit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_item_stock_quantity or update_item_name by focusing on price modification, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for use: it specifies the optimistic locking requirement, the valid price bounds, the dry_run preview behavior, and required permissions (INVENTORY_R and INVENTORY_W). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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