upsert_stock_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers the most important trait: this write is immediate and bypasses a safety switch. However, it does not say what permissions are needed, how existing count data behaves on update, or what happens when the safety flag is active.

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 risk banner and redirect are front-loaded in the first two clauses, and the remaining sentence is a single compact purpose statement. Zero waste.

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 deprecated, high-risk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical context: deprecation, risk nature, and the correct replacement. It falls short of fully covering the five parameters, but an agent has enough to decide never to call it unless explicitly required.

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 60%, and the description itself adds no parameter detail (remarks and timestamp are undocumented anywhere). However, the tool's key semantic — create vs update, with id required for updates — is conveyed by the schema's own id description, so the description only needs to signal 'upsert', which it does. Baseline is a 3; description neither compensates nor misleads.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Create or update a stock count') and explicitly names the sibling that supersedes it, 'set_stock_count'. An agent can distinguish this tool from the other ~50 siblings without opening the schema.

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 gives an explicit when-not: this is a LEGACY IMMEDIATE WRITE that bypasses INFLOW_ENABLE_SAFE_WRITES, and directs the agent to 'Use set_stock_count instead.' The alternative and the condition selecting it are named outright.

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