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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does disclose a real side effect beyond the annotations — propagation to all variants and re-sync of every connected channel — but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, failure handling, or partial-success behavior on channels.

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 tightly written sentences with the operation and its propagation consequence front-loaded. The trailing '[#b8aca8]' token is stray noise that slightly degrades the structure but does not obscure meaning.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description conveys the essential behavior (variant cascade + conditional channel re-sync). Gaps remain around the workspace parameter and what happens if a channel re-sync fails, but the core calling context is present.

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 coverage is 40%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It usefully ties store_uuid to channel re-sync and confirms the cascade semantics of new_price, but leaves 'workspace' undocumented and does not explain the interaction between store_uuid and also_update_channels.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Change a product price') and immediately scopes it ('cascades to all variants', re-syncs connected channels). This implicitly separates it from generic siblings like update_product or set_prices_by_margin, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'changed on one channel, forgot the others' framing tells the agent this is the tool for keeping prices consistent across channels, and the parenthetical gives the store_uuid condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternatives (e.g. set_prices_by_margin, sync_to_channel).

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