stock_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The synonym 'bookmark' adds some context but insufficient for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 with a single, clear phrase. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a helpful synonym in parentheses without wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 likely mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stocking' entails operationally (e.g., saving for later, marking as favorite), what the return value might be, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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% with one parameter ('item_id') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying an item is involved, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('stock') and the target ('an item'), with 'bookmark' providing a helpful synonym. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'unstock_item' or 'list_user_stocks', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unstock_item' for removal or 'list_user_stocks' for viewing. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the user must be authenticated or the item must exist.

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