update_inventory_quantity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool mutates state ('updates the available quantity') and states the return value ('returning the updated inventory level after adjustment'), but it does not mention permissions, validation rules, reversibility, or error behavior.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the action ('updates') and directly specifies the resource, inputs, and output. There is no filler or redundant 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?

For a simple tool with three scalar parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, inputs, and return value ('updated inventory level'). It is adequate for selecting and calling the tool, but it omits details about error conditions or permission requirements, though those are not critical for this simple update.

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, so the schema already fully explains all three parameters. The description only lists the parameter names without adding further semantic detail, such as constraints or relationships, beyond what the schema states. A baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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 verb and resource: 'updates the available quantity of an inventory item at a specific location,' and it lists all three inputs and the output. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as update_variant_price or add_product_variant.

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 when to use this tool by naming the operation, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over sibling tools or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or non-use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the stated purpose.

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