update_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reveal a key behavior: the update is asynchronous ('async feed'). However, it does not disclose submission semantics, validation behavior, whether the feed replaces or patches stock, or how to check processing status. This is a useful but partial disclosure.

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 extremely compact: two sentences that front-load the action, convey async behavior, and communicate the item structure. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and no annotations or output schema, so the description must cover the invocation contract. It does enough for a basic call (products array with sellerSku/id/stock), but it leaves out required field semantics, stock value typing, and how to track the async feed, so it is not fully complete for safe autonomous invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names the three meaningful item properties (sellerSku, id, stock), which is helpful, but it omits types, requiredness, and value constraints (e.g., stock as integer vs string) and gives no explicit contract for the products array beyond those keys.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Update stock'), resource (stock), and operational mode ('async feed'). It also enumerates the item fields (sellerSku, id, stock), which disambiguates it from sibling read tools like get_stock and broader product/price updates.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as sync_products, get_stock, or update_products. It does not mention prerequisites, whether this is the preferred batch path for stock changes, or how the async feed relates to get_feed_status.

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