Plan Inventory Adjustment

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that the tool creates a staged operation that must be previewed and executed, meaning it does not directly modify inventory. This complements annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) without contradiction, though it omits details about operation management (e.g., cancellation).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical workflow caveat in the second sentence without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity of a 3-step plan/preview/execute workflow and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's role and the required next steps. It could further specify the output (e.g., an operation ID) or name the exact sibling tools, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's place in the workflow.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the description need not explain parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully describes each property, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('inventory adjustment'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining it creates a staged operation prior to preview and execution. This prevents confusion with inventory_adjust_preview and inventory_adjust_execute.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for planning and that the resulting operation must be previewed and executed, implying the workflow. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of full usage guidance.

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