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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of what actually happens. It discloses that only passed fields change and that isArchived pulls versions, features and tasks out of work selection. Archiving is described as reversible (restore), so this does not contradict destructiveHint=false.

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?

Purpose and the partial-update qualifier are front-loaded, and every clause (field scope, return context, archive side-effects, consent rule) adds information. It is a dense run-on sentence with semicolons rather than cleanly separated sentences, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 10-parameter mutation with a nested design object, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: partial semantics, the returned context, the archive side-effect, and the consent constraint. It omits nothing an agent would need to call it correctly, though naming the read-only sibling would complete the picture.

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 already documents per-field replacement semantics, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns the extra point by explaining the cross-system consequence of the isArchived parameter (versions/features/tasks leave work selection), which the schema does not state.

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 specific verb+resource ('Changes a product') and qualifies the mutation as partial ('only the passed fields'), which is meaningful precision for an agent. It does not name or differentiate against siblings such as product_context or product_list, 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?

Gives an explicit permission condition for the risky path: 'Changes shared product structure; only at the user's request or with their consent.' That is real when-to-use guidance. It names no alternatives (e.g., read-only product_context) and states no exclusions, so it is not a 5.

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