Bulk verify inventory

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

With annotations already declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds context about the state change ('mark as physically verified') and optional location update. It does not contradict the annotations. The description could mention partial-failure behavior (rollbackPartial), but that is detailed in the parameter schema, so the added value is adequate.

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 sentence plus the word 'Write.' It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and mutation type.

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?

Given the descriptive schema (6 fully described parameters) and clear annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description is a sufficient entry point. It adds the 'cycle count' context and signals mutation. There is no output schema, but for a write operation like this, return values are not essential for invoking it. A 5 would require more detail about the response or side effects.

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 100%, and each parameter has its own description. The tool description only hints at the location parameter ('optionally updating their location') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('mark'), a specific resource ('serial numbers'), and a clear context ('during a cycle count'). It also explicitly states 'Write' to signal mutation, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_account and search_items. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools.

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 provides clear context ('during a cycle count') that indicates when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. There is no obvious sibling alternative, so the context is sufficient for a 4 but not a 5.

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