adjust_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only restates the delta semantics ('increase or decrease') which are already in the schema, and does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 concise sentence with the main action front-loaded. The parenthetical '(increase or decrease)' is slightly redundant with the schema but does not bloat the text. It earns its place as a quick summary, though it could be shorter without loss.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It clearly explains the core operation but omits practical context such as when to use it, what the tool returns, and whether the 'reason' parameter is expected in certain scenarios. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; the 'increase or decrease' wording duplicates the delta property's description. No extra context about how parameters interact is given.

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 clearly states the verb 'adjusts' with specific resources ('inventory of an item at a location') and the nature of the change ('increase or decrease'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like get_inventory_levels or get_product_inventory, which are read-only operations.

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 for modifying inventory amounts but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance like 'use this for corrections or receiving' or 'if you need to view inventory, use get_inventory_levels instead.' Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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