Create or update item

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent). The description adds the fact that Loyverse uses POST for both create and update尚 and clarifies the stock boundary. It does not disclose response behavior, permissions, or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the id-based update behavior is stated, and the stock limitation is placed with its alternative action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

This is a complex 19-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage. The description only addresses id and stock, but does not explain required create/update distinctions, variant requirements, or the meaning of key nested structures. For an agent to call this correctly, significantly more guidance is needed.

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 only 26%, so the description needed to compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the role of 'id' and notes that stock cannot be set, while 19 parameters exist and many important fields like tax_ids, components, option names, and per-store variants remain unexplained.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Create a catalogue item, or update one by passing its id.' It clearly distinguishes the action from stock-related tools and is scoped to the item resource, which differentiates it from sibling tools like loyverse_upsert_variant or loyverse_set_inventory.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: stock cannot be set here, so create the item first and then call loyverse_set_inventory. This both states when not to use the tool and names the correct alternative, leaving little to inference.

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