Edit disposition item price

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds 'Executes directly,' which implies immediate effect without additional steps, and labels the operation as 'Write,' adding some behavioral context beyond 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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The final 'Write' is somewhat redundant since 'Set' already implies mutation, so it does not earn its place fully, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 simple setter with 4 parameters (one optional) and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the pending-disposition context, and immediate execution. It does not explain return values or failure behavior, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and schema coverage.

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%, so parameters are fully documented structurally. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Set the sale price of an item on a pending disposition,' which uses a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_disposition or add_disposition_items.

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 phrase 'on a pending disposition' provides clear context for when the tool applies, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools. It implies not for committed dispositions but lacks a direct when-not.

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