update_product_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions in/out stock movements and does not explain side effects like permanent stock quantity updates, creation of movement history records, permission requirements, or reversibility. This under-disclosure could lead the agent to misuse the tool.

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, short sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the key verb. This is appropriately concise.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to clarify what happens as a result (e.g., stock level adjustment, movement record creation), the role of 'price' for valuation, or any validation rules. The agent lacks essential contextual grounding.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the qty sign conventions for entry/exit. It does not compensate or deepen understanding of any parameter.

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 'Effectuer un mouvement de stock (entrée ou sortie) pour un produit' clearly specifies the verb (effectuer), resource (mouvement de stock), and scope (in/out for a product). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_product_stock and get_warehouse_stock.

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 usage (perform a stock movement) but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or emphasize that this tool writes stock data while siblings like get_product_stock only read it.

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