update_stock

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the useful behavioral guarantee that relationships are preserved, which is beyond the schema and annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what 'preserving relationships' entails (e.g., whether non-specified fields are unchanged, or how model_id/workspace_id affect behavior). With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and a key constraint in a compact form, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (covering return values) and the input schema fully describes parameters, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by clarifying what fields are preserved and whether missing optional parameters are left unchanged. Still, the core operational context is sufficiently described for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or which fields are commonly updated together. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Update'), the resource ('stock'), and a defining scope ('while preserving relationships'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_stock (creation) and update_flow/update_aux (different target types), so the purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies the tool is for modifying existing stock fields without breaking connections, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives like add_stock or update_flow. It provides clear context (updates on stocks) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative naming.

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