gold_update_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses 'BYOK fail-closed' and makes clear this is a mutating PUT call, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what happens on success/failure, whether confirmation is required, or any side effects beyond the stock update.

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 dense line: endpoint, payload, fail-closed behavior, and bulk usage are all packed in without redundant prose. The 'Gold PRO $29' prefix adds context about the paid/BYOK nature of the tool, though it is not strictly functional.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover more: return values, confirmation behavior, and the role of manage_stock are absent. It is still usable because the schema documents confirm, required fields, and enums, but the description alone leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by identifying stock_quantity and stock_status as the updated payload fields and embedding {id} in the endpoint. But manage_stock and confirm are not explained in the description; confirm is only covered by the schema, and manage_stock has no guidance at all.

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 action ('update Woo stock') and pinpoints the resource and endpoint (PUT /wp-json/wc/v3/products/{id}) with the relevant fields. It is clearly scoped to stock updates, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like gold_update_product.

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 'Bulk-ready (call per SKU)' line gives practical usage context for repeated stock updates, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'for other product changes use X' guidance. The intended scope is implied by the tool name and endpoint rather than stated as a rule.

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