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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('Costs 1 db credit'), an account prerequisite, and mutation behavior ('An edit does not hide a live product') that usefully qualifies the destructiveHint=true flag. No permission or failure-mode detail, but it adds real context that the annotations do not carry.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the invocation rule, the safety clarification, and the cost/auth constraints. No filler; 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 an 18-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs to call it: partial-update semantics, credit cost, and account requirement. The remaining gap is field-level meaning, especially the nested pricing_details object, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

With 18 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the single most important semantic ('pass only the fields to change'), clarifying partial-update behavior the schema cannot convey on its own. However, it explains none of the individual fields, and the nested pricing_details object and enum-like pricing_type/product_type are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Update a product you previously submitted') and clarifies the scope of an edit (new feature, pricing, or a new version). This cleanly separates it from create-side siblings like submit_product and from the other update_* tools that target different resources.

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?

Explains how to invoke it ('Pass slug plus only the fields to change'), which is genuine usage guidance for a partial-update tool. It implies the create path is handled elsewhere but never names submit_product as the alternative, so routing is left partly to inference.

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