update_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description adds 'validation and audit logging' as behavioral traits. However, it does not specify what validation occurs, the nature of audit logging, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible. More detail is needed for a tool without annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every phrase adds value: the action, key features (validation, audit logging), and permission requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not explain the return value or what the agent can expect. It lacks detail on how 'adjust' works (e.g., whether quantity_delta is additive or absolute), the role of 'reason', and potential side effects. Given the critical nature of inventory operations, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain any of the three parameters (sku, quantity_delta, reason). It does not clarify that quantity_delta is a positive/negative integer or that reason is a required free-text field, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 'Adjust inventory' with specific verb and resource, and adds validation, audit logging, and permission requirements. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_support_ticket and process_order.

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 mentions the required permission 'inventory:write', providing a precondition. It implies usage for inventory adjustments, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives beyond the permission context.

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