set_sku_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only explains why the tool exists, not what happens on invocation—whether costs are overwritten, how effective_date alters records, idempotency, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It adds useful rationale without superfluous words, earning its 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?

As a write operation with no annotations, minimal parameter documentation, and no behavioral detail, the description leaves critical gaps around record overwrites, effective-date semantics, and edge cases. The output schema may cover return values, but operational context remains underspecified.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters. The description adds no clarification for sku, cost, or effective_date beyond 'SKU' and 'COGS'. In particular, effective_date is completely unexplained, leaving agents to guess its purpose and format. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 the tool records COGS for a SKU, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the read-oriented sibling tools by explaining this is the manual maintenance mechanism for profitability calculations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (because Amazon lacks product cost, it must be maintained manually) and mentions its role in calculate_profitability. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_sku_costs or state when not to use it.

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