alter_stock_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the non-obvious two-step opening-stock confirmation and that unspecified fields are left untouched. It never states that this writes to Tally and takes a backup, and it omits the dry_run safety path entirely even though the schema exposes it.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the field list and the highest-risk behavior. The opening-stock explanation is longer than the rest but earns its length; minor slack from the parenthetical field naming.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the dangerous path but not the general return shape, the dry_run escape hatch, or the advanced XML extension point. Adequate to start, not adequate to call confidently.

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?

It names new_name, group, unit, GST rate, HSN, description and opening stock plus the critical confirm_opening_change flag. But at 60% schema coverage, roughly half the parameters (aliases, category, cess_rate, extra_xml, taxability, opening_rate, opening_value, opening_godown, hsn_description, dry_run) get no meaning from either source.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Modify a stock item") and enumerates the updatable fields, which clearly separates it from create_stock_item and the master/ledger siblings. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Only given fields change" establishes partial-update semantics and the opening-stock paragraph prescribes an exact procedure (call, show figures to user, repeat with confirm_opening_change). What's missing is any exclusion or pointer to create_stock_item / alter_master for adjacent operations.

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