set_stock_adjustment

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious constraint: apply is currently unavailable so only preview works until the adapter and canary complete. But it omits the preview/apply workflow details, idempotency behavior, and what the dryRun default implies.

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?

Two short sentences with the core identity front-loaded, so there is little waste. But it is under-specified rather than truly concise, leaving the reader without enough to act.

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 10-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the two-sentence description is inadequate. It never explains the preview-token flow, the hash guards, or the preview-to-apply transition an agent must understand to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, and the description adds nothing about any of them. Critical fields like previewToken, the three expected*Hash values, idempotencyKey, mode, and dryRun are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description states it is a 'preview-first replacement for the deprecated immediate stock-adjustment write,' which hints at the resource (stock adjustment) but never clearly states the actual verb/outcome (preview a stock adjustment change). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like upsert_stock_adjustment, set_stock_count, or set_stock_transfer beyond naming 'deprecated immediate write.'

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?

It implies this tool should be used instead of the deprecated immediate write and notes 'Apply remains unavailable,' giving some implied usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this vs. upsert_stock_adjustment or the other set_* siblings, nor what workflow to follow.

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