ecommerce_update_price_stock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that price and stock are changed, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, partial updates, validation, reversibility, or any mutation side effects — a significant gap for a write operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy, and it front-loads the core action. It is somewhat under-specified for the tool's complexity, but structurally it is clean and efficient.

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, no annotations, and five parameters, the definition is not complete enough. It omits identifier semantics, partial-update behavior, platform-specific concerns, and any mention of batch/sync alternatives, so an agent would have difficulty using it correctly without external knowledge.

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 maps 'price' and 'stock quantity' to newPrice and newStock, but it does not explain platform, productId, skuId, or the relationship between product-level and SKU-level identifiers. This is minimal compensation for five undocumented parameters.

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 a clear verb ('ปรับเปลี่ยน' = modify/change) and specific resources (product price and stock quantity). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ecommerce_batch_update_price_stock, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the batch update or multi-platform sync tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions, leaving the agent without a basis for tool selection.

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