Adjust Shopify Inventory (by delta)

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the relative-delta mutation model, the requirement that the item be stocked at the location first, and identifier flexibility (SKU preferred, GID or name for location). It does not mention permission requirements or response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core semantic distinction, then the alternative tool, then the prerequisite. No filler sentences and no repetition of schema content.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations-level detail on returns, yet the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: mutation model, identifier choices, location format, and the activation prerequisite. Only the return/error behavior and the enum-driven fields (reason, name) are left implicit.

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 coverage is 83% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: delta sign convention with an example, SKU as the preferred identifier with inventoryItemId as the alternative, and that location accepts either a GID or a name. It does not explain the 'name' (available vs on_hand) or 'reason' enums, which the schema already labels.

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 and resource plus the key modifier: 'Change stock by a RELATIVE amount at one location,' with a concrete example (delta: -3). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling shopify_set_inventory, which adjusts to an exact number.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition for choosing it ('To set an exact number instead of a delta, use shopify_set_inventory'), and states a prerequisite with the fix ('The variant must already be stocked at the location — activate it first with shopify_set_variant_locations'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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