Propose: set stock quantity

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is declared. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that the call only creates a proposal pending human approval rather than writing stock immediately. It does not explain what happens to the current quantity, whether the value is absolute or a delta, or what the proposal record looks like.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the approval caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter, human-gated mutation with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description leaves too much open. An agent cannot tell from it what a successful call returns (a proposal ID?), how the proposal is later applied, or what the mandatory reason is for.

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 carry parameter meaning and largely does not. "Product or variation" only loosely signals that variation_id is the optional fourth parameter; nothing explains product_id, the minimum-0 constraint on stock_quantity, or why a free-text reason of at least 5 characters is mandatory.

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 uses a specific verb ("Propose") with a specific resource ("new stock quantity for a product or variation"), which separates it from siblings like propose_price_update or propose_refund. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause "Requires human approval" implies this feeds a propose-then-apply workflow, which hints at when to use it rather than a direct stock mutation. However, it never names apply_proposal or list_proposals, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for read-only stock checks, use get_product).

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