shelf_manage_placements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the replacement semantics — that the supplied set of placements is the authoritative full state, which is exactly the behavior an agent must not get wrong on a write.

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?

One dense sentence with the mutation semantics front-loaded in the parenthetical. Every clause carries meaning and nothing is padding.

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 nested-array mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core replacement behavior but omits expected failure modes (non-quantity-tracked asset, invalid locationId, negative quantity), the response shape, and any partial-application semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 33% (only orgId is documented). The description compensates partially by constraining the target to a 'quantity-tracked asset' and clarifying that quantity is per-location, but it says nothing about assetId format, placement item structure, or what an omitted locationId means.

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 (Set), the resource (units of a quantity-tracked asset at each location), and the operative scope ('full replacement'), which cleanly separates it from the incremental shelf_adjust_quantity sibling. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-language.

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 '(full replacement)' parenthetical implies the usage context (bulk authoritative placement vs incremental adjust) but never states when to choose this over shelf_adjust_quantity or shelf_update_asset_location, nor any prerequisite that the asset be quantity-tracked. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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