adjust-inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core mutation semantics: it changes available inventory by a signed delta. However, it omits potential side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or response behavior, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core operation and delta semantics are front-loaded, and the prerequisite lookup guidance is placed in the second sentence without redundancy.

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 simple mutation with fully documented parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the necessary setup: how to obtain both required IDs and what delta means. It does not describe the return value or error cases, but nothing in the provided context suggests these are blocking 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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the delta behavior and adds helpful workflow guidance for obtaining the two ID parameters, but it does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific action ('adjust available inventory quantity'), a specific resource ('product variant at a location'), and the exact delta semantics (positive to add, negative to remove). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update-product and update-variant-price.

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 prerequisite guidance, telling the agent to use get-product-by-id for the inventoryItem ID and get-locations for the location ID. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name an alternative, but the context is clear enough for selecting it.

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