shelf_adjust_quantity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint — that the asset must be quantity-tracked — but says nothing about permission needs, whether the adjustment is reversible/audited, or how direction and quantity interact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is arguably under-specified for a 6-parameter mutation rather than truly optimized.

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?

With no output schema, low schema coverage, and only minimal annotations, the description should carry more weight than one sentence. An agent lacks the details needed to know how to combine direction, quantity, and category correctly, or what a successful adjustment returns.

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 17% (only orgId is documented), leaving assetId, quantity, direction, category, and note bare. The description's 'restock, correction, or loss' hints at the category enum but does not explain direction ('add'/'subtract'), the quantity>0 constraint, or the note field, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Adjust) and resource (stock of a quantity-tracked asset) with the three motivating intents in parentheses. No sibling tool performs quantity adjustment, so the scope is distinguishable, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrast case.

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 parenthetical 'restock, correction, or loss' implies the situations that motivate the call and maps loosely to the category enum, but there is no explicit when-not or guidance on choosing between the categories or handling direction.

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