woo_reconcile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the all-active-serials scope, restricts site to retail/dealer, and includes the important confirm=true instruction, which is not obvious from the schema default of false. It does not explain what confirm=false does or failure modes, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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?

Three short, information-dense clauses with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the use case follows, and parameter constraints are compactly appended. Every sentence 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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the necessary inputs, scenario, and the confirm flag. Minor gaps are the lack of return/error behavior and explicit mention of alternative tools, but these do not prevent correct invocation.

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 provides the identifier context for item_code, constrains site to retail/dealer, and points to confirm=true—enough to populate all three parameters with confidence. It is terse but adds value beyond the bare schema defaults.

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?

States a concrete action—push the item-level product AND all active serial numbers in one call—and ties it to the specific scenario of initial listing of a per-serial firearm. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like woo_push_item and woo_push_serial, which handle only part of that operation.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: initial listing where everything must go live at once, which implies when this combined call is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scenario framing provides clear contextual guidance.

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